NationStates Jolt Archive

What are everyone's views on circumcision?

Personally I think its an abhorrent practice, and is one of those cases where it would be justified to step in despite religious beliefs. Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions), that doesn't mean it should be allowed without consent of the patient. While its not perfectly proved, several studies have shown that circumcision results in less feeling in the penis (and therefore less pleasure during sex), although some other studies have shown the opposite. However logically it makes sense that when a sensitive part of your body is exposed that it will become less sensitive (think calloused hands/feet). Add this to the fact that the procedure is extremely painful, provides no definite benefit to the individual, and in infants cannot be performed with general anesthesia, it is simply barbaric. Of course there is also the possibility of infection and that the doctor makes a mistake and removes the entire penis. However many people, without religious reasons, continue to have this procedure performed on their children.

Nocirc.org (http://www.nocirc.org/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

I for one am glad I wasn't born into such a culture, though I have yet to find anything to store in there (barring natural lubricant of course)

i hear it increases friction for the receiver increasing stimulation. one source only. otherwise, i'm entirely against involuntary genital mutilation.

Meh. It was medically necessary for me, and I've got no complaints with my sex life. Apart from being on the other side of the world, but thats a different story.

EDIT: I am of course, assuming we are talking about male circumcision here.

Foreskin Circumcision = fine
Anything else = your messing around and hurting the person

Meh. It was medically necessary for me, and I've got no complaints with my sex life. Apart from being on the other side of the world, but thats a different story.

*sits in circle*

Foreskin Circumcision = fine
Anything else = your messing around and hurting the person

surely thats the other way around :confused:

I'm against circumcision, especially when effective replacements for the alleged health benefits are available, but in the context of a long-standing culture that prescribes it rather strongly at a time when the child is incapable of consent, it is fair to neither parent nor child to prohibit it.

Edit: Unless one is inclined to generally oppose the right of parents to indoctrinate their children into their religion/culture, but while the moral problems there are fairly obvious, the lack of a credible alternative in today's society makes it something of a moot point.

i hear it increases friction for the receiver increasing stimulation. one source only. otherwise, i'm entirely against involuntary genital mutilation.

I guess that would depend on whether or not the receiver wants more friction or less- I really wouldn't be one to say. Of course sexual satisfaction for a future partner is hardly an excuse for such a procedure to be performed on a child.

What do I think? I think that people who describe male circumcision and forsekin removal as "mutilation" are far to emotive and can't really be trusted to discuss the topic rationally.

I'm against circumcision, especially when effective replacements for the alleged health benefits are available, but in the context of a long-standing culture that prescribes it rather strongly at a time when the child is incapable of consent, it is fair to neither parent nor child to prohibit it.

Well, I suppose prohibiting it could cause trouble for the child. But I don't see how it would be unfair for the parents. Long-standing culture or not, a procedure is good or bad based on its merits and flaws.

Personally, I don't really know one way or the other. Apart from the religious rites, I see no reason for it. Some medical benefits are there, others are just made up, but I won't have it done to my son.

What do I think? I think that people who describe male circumcision and forsekin removal as "mutilation" are far to emotive and can't really be trusted to discuss the topic rationally.

mu·ti·late /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot-l-eyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
[Origin: 1525–35; < L mutilātus (ptp. of mutilāre to cut off, maim), equiv. to mutil(us) maimed, mutilated + -ātus -ate1]

—Related forms
mu·ti·la·tion, noun
mu·ti·la·tive, mu·ti·la·to·ry /ˈmyutləˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot-l-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, adjective
mu·ti·la·tor, noun

—Synonyms 1. damage, mar, cripple. 2. See maim.


Looks like it fits, I personally don't use the word to describe it because it takes away from your argument when people think you're a crackpot. But it is appropriate in my opinion.

But I don't see how it would be unfair for the parents.

Because of the importance circumcision has to them. For an action with fairly minimal material consequences, I think that importance probably trumps any concern for the child here.

What do I think? I think that people who describe male circumcision and forsekin removal as "mutilation" are far to emotive and can't really be trusted to discuss the topic rationally.
I'd agree with that. There doesn't appear to be a consensus on whether or not circumcision affect pleasure or anything else negatively, so I have no opinion. Probably better not to remove things unless there is a reason too, however (see the appendix thread)
*sits in circle*

Its not that interesting, lol. I'm in San Diego for the year, my girlfriend is in Leeds. So no sex till xmas. :(

none of us have complained yet.

*waves hand*

Wrong. But admittedly I don't complain very loudly. ;)

Jews have been circumcised for thousand of years...none of us have complained yet.

What does that mean? It means Foreskin Circumcision is fine....theres nothing wrong with it.

Jews have been circumcised for thousand of years...none of us have complained yet.

Not a single kvetch?

Now as to the actual topic. Most of the arguments don't really work. As for the "no consent" part, it doesn't work. Parents do things to their kids without their consent all the time. Surgeries, dental work, immunizations...you think when I was a kid I liked getting a needle in my arm? Hardly. Children have medical procedures performed on them all the time.

"It hurts." Now come on. I promise you I can't remember a thing. Might it have hurt a little bit to my 8 day old brain? ehh, probably a bit. Is this really a big deal? Not really. The spank I got on my ass after being born probably hurt too. So did teething. I don't think a minor pain to an infant who lacks the cognitive functions to remember it for more than a few minutes is really a good argument.

Additionally, there are obvious health benefits, hygene being one of the big, obvious ones. There are also studies that suggest that there may be marginal benefits in HIV prevention. So we can add that one.

Negatives? None really shown. There's been a lot of noise and contention, but no real proof. The analogy to "callouses on your feet" doesn't really work. I am not too sure what you're doing iwth your penis, but mine has remained remarkably callous free.

So it's an event with extreme social importance, some marginal benefit, and no real physical loss documented. Sure it's done without consent, but then, that's hardly an argument, lots of things are done without an infant's consent.

Its not that interesting, lol. I'm in San Diego for the year, my girlfriend is in Leeds. So no sex till xmas. :(

trust me no matter what your doing your in a better place than Leeds

Jews have been circumcised for thousand of years...none of us have complained yet.

I'm going to need a source :p

What does that mean? It means Foreskin Circumcision is fine....theres nothing wrong with it.

beyond unnecessary surgery

Not a single kvetch?

oy, just a bissel

I for one am glad I was born into such a culture, though I have yet to find any reason it shouldn't be done.

Until last year, I had no idea that what I saw when I looked down was far from average. I never thought that the majority of the world was not circumcised. NS taught me this and I wonder what it would be like to continue thinking that now and years later.

Jews have been circumcised for thousand of years...none of us have complained yet.

What does that mean? It means Foreskin Circumcision is fine....theres nothing wrong with it.

(really tempted to joke about Jews... I'm sure you could figure it out)

Thats far from proof. And I'm sure we could find a Jew who would/has complained. And what about other people who have complained besides Jews, is it only OK for Jews then? I don't mean to say that circumcision is a completely horrible thing that destroys someone's life, but I don't see any substantial benefit to neonatal circumcision.

I love having a circumcised penis. It fits me well :)

trust me no matter what your doing your in a better place than Leeds

Says the man from Northampton. :p

Negatives?

"Uncircumcised penises are more attractive."

Now, this may sound like not much of an objection... but in fact it is crucial to the reason actual consent should be necessary for these procedures (at least in a society that has abandoned superstitious rituals): "benefit" is subjective, and when it comes to a procedure with no strong medical effects either way, it is very difficult to predict the person's later subjective feelings regarding it.

Parents do things to their kids without their consent all the time. Surgeries, dental work, immunizations...you think when I was a kid I liked getting a needle in my arm? Hardly. Children have medical procedures performed on them all the time.

usually its for a good reason though

Additionally, there are obvious health benefits, hygene being one of the big, obvious ones. There are also studies that suggest that there may be marginal benefits in HIV prevention. So we can add that one.

1) yes I'm sure if you didn't bother practicing basic hygiene on your genitals such things would be necessary, unfortunately not having a foreskin (and thus the natural lubricant which in modern times is washed away) will be the last thing on your mind

2) honestly if you not using a condom by now I'd be worried

Negatives? None really shown. There's been a lot of noise and contention, but no real proof. The analogy to "callouses on your feet" doesn't really work. I am not too sure what you're doing iwth your penis, but mine has remained remarkably callous free.

unnecessary surgery is always a bad thing

So it's an event with extreme social importance

it is :confused:

I love having a circumcised penis. It fits me well :)

Zilam's penis is as sleek and modern as the man who owns it.

usually its for a good reason though

And social and religious reasons are not good reasons?

it is :confused:

Among religious Jews, yes.

Now as to the actual topic. Most of the arguments don't really work. As for the "no consent" part, it doesn't work. Parents do things to their kids without their consent all the time. Surgeries, dental work, immunizations...you think when I was a kid I liked getting a needle in my arm? Hardly. Children have medical procedures performed on them all the time.

"It hurts." Now come on. I promise you I can't remember a thing. Might it have hurt a little bit to my 8 day old brain? ehh, probably a bit. Is this really a big deal? Not really. The spank I got on my ass after being born probably hurt too. So did teething. I don't think a minor pain to an infant who lacks the cognitive functions to remember it for more than a few minutes is really a good argument.

Additionally, there are obvious health benefits, hygene being one of the big, obvious ones. There are also studies that suggest that there may be marginal benefits in HIV prevention. So we can add that one.

Negatives? None really shown. There's been a lot of noise and contention, but no real proof. The analogy to "callouses on your feet" doesn't really work. I am not too sure what you're doing iwth your penis, but mine has remained remarkably callous free.

So it's an event with extreme social importance, some marginal benefit, and no real physical loss documented. Sure it's done without consent, but then, that's hardly an argument, lots of things are done without an infant's consent.

Parents are allowed to perform procedures that show definite benefit to their children (ie. not harm). I didn't mean to say that callouses form on circumcised penises(and I'm sure that you didn't think I did), but the point remains that the head of a circumcised penis is exposed to a lot more abuse than that of an uncircumcised one, and therefore reduces sensation. as far as pain, I'm sure no guy in his right mind would consent to a circumcision without painkillers (and lots of 'em). Elevated heart rates(duh), as well as screaming, trouble with feeding etc. have been noted for those who have been circumcised as infants, to claim that their pain is insubstantial is nonsense. I used to have a video of a circumcision around somewhere... lemme see if I can find it.

Zilam's penis is as sleek and modern as the man who owns it.

I hope that wasn't meant as a sarcastic insult. Cuz then i'd be pissed. :p

I used to have a video of a circumcision around somewhere... lemme see if I can find it.

No thanks, I can do fine without it...

I love having a circumcised penis. It fits me well :)

improved aerodynamics?

Says the man from Northampton. :p

:eek: *tells the joggers hanging outside the supermarket innit*

And social and religious reasons are not good reasons?

tempted to say yes but religious gets the usual free pass

Among religious Jews, yes.

I for one have always wondered if the Jewish community can spot uncircumcised males

I love having a circumcised penis. It fits me well :)

I can honestly say that I'm glad for you- I'm all for personal choice on what makes people happy, as long as it doesn't adversely effect others.

Eh I'm circumcised and I don't see any problems with it. It does help keep the head cleaner.

"Uncircumcised penises are more attractive."


Probably because they are more common/integrated into society?

The process does not seem to cause any real harm or do any significant good, so I am pretty much neutral on the subject.

That would be considerably harmful.

How so?

If it does no harm and does no good than it is as relevant to existence as is shaving your eyebrows.

except for the social aspects of it.

except for the social aspects of it.

Exactly my point.

Probably because they are more common/integrated into society?

The process does not seem to cause any real harm or do any significant good, so I am pretty much neutral on the subject.

If it does no harm and does no good than it is as relevant to existence as is shaving your eyebrows.

If it does no harm and does no good than it is as relevant to existence as is shaving your eyebrows.

That would be considerably harmful.

and in infants cannot be performed with anesthesia, it is simply barbaric.

This is actually not true. Current recommendations support using local anesthetic in infant circumcision.

Personally, I've looked into the research on this and there simply doesn't seem to be an appreciable positive effect when good hygiene and safe-sex practices are followed. If I have a son, I'd much rather teach him to keep his penis clean and to use condoms than to permanently alter his body. If he later chooses circumcision, more power to him.

I don't think religion is a good reason for it. The idea of a parent making permanent alterations to a child's body because of the parent's religion is abhorrent to me. If the child joins that religion when he is old enough and wants to bear the mark of that religion, he can decide for himself. Then again, I also don't agree with Christening (although I do think dedication is alright). Again, the problem is this idea that parents choose religion for an infant - it bugs the hell out of me.

Should it be illegal? On that, I'm not so sure. If a parent is convinced by the research out there that it is good preventative medicine, I could see it being allowed. But I wouldn't do it.

I like it ^^ Brings some beauty to an otherwise ugly organ XP

This is actually not true. Current recommendations support using local anesthetic in infant circumcision.

Yea, I meant general anesthetic, sorry.

Eh I'm circumcised and I don't see any problems with it. It does help keep the head cleaner.

ah but you have lost a plaything that never gets boring

just think of having starcraft on your penis

ah but you have lost a plaything that never gets boring

just think of having starcraft on your penis

Try a different game.

Circumcision as a common, "everybody else does it" occurance is not good, I agree. But there are cases where it's needed. When my sons were born, I knew, because of medical history of some of my husband's family, that my little guys would need the chop. There was a history of tight foreskins in the family. But despite seeing several doctors and explaining the situation, every one of them told me no, I was being cruel to my little baby, we don't circumcise anymore. Well, 8 years later, my sons are about to have to undergo surgery to be circumcised because their foreskins are too tight, surprise surprise. And it will be far more cruel to do it now, as they are terrified, and have to go under general anaesthetic, and be in much more pain than if the doctor had done it when I wanted it. But if it isn't done now, they will have virtually no sex life later on because it's just too tight.
I think we, as parents should be able to have the right to have our sons circumcised if there is a need.

When I was born, I don't know if they even asked the parents, it was sort of automatic. Don't know if it's hurt or helped (beyond the initial hurt).

When our son was born the doctor said it was 50/50 and on it's way down. When we asked about the health benefits he use a couple cuss words and said they were statistically trivial and shouldn't be the basis of the decision. So, being one who is against any unnecessary surgery and any unnecessary pain we left things as they are. Hasn't hurt so far.

Yea, I meant general anesthetic, sorry.

Ah, well I don't see that as being a problem. They do vasectomies, which are much more invasive, under local.

Precisely the reason I can't STAND IT when a guy has it uncircumcised. He plays with it and plays with it and plays with it because it's just a loose flap of skin.

On that note, as a woman I prefer circumcised because it has in my experience been CONSIDERABLY cleaner when it is so(it's naturally easier to clean that way)...

... just really funny for a first post. Welcome to the forums.

ah but you have lost a plaything that never gets boring

just think of having starcraft on your penis


Precisely the reason I can't STAND IT when a guy has it uncircumcised. He plays with it and plays with it and plays with it because it's just a loose flap of skin.

On that note, as a woman I prefer circumcised because it has in my experience been CONSIDERABLY cleaner when it is so(it's naturally easier to clean that way)...

Ah, well I don't see that as being a problem. They do vasectomies, which are much more invasive, under local.

Well, I don't claim to be a doctor I assumed that someone could still feel some pain under local. thanks for the info.

I love my circumcised penis. Several sources have stated that circumcision can help you last longer and please your woman.

I love my circumcised penis. Several sources have stated that circumcision can help you last longer and please your woman.

Unfortunately this has had the opposite effect for me. I last too long (I know, who knew it was possible) and it results in significant pain and discomfort for everyone in the end.

I'm against the cirmcumcision on minors except in medical cases like phimosis or paraphimosis. I wouldn't circumsize my penis, but other men can knock themselves out for all I care.

I believe everything should be circumcised. Even animals. Especially animals.

Precisely the reason I can't STAND IT when a guy has it uncircumcised. He plays with it and plays with it and plays with it because it's just a loose flap of skin.

On that note, as a woman I prefer circumcised because it has in my experience been CONSIDERABLY cleaner when it is so(it's naturally easier to clean that way)...

Do you live in the US? I've met men who were so conditioned to the idea that penis touching = sex that they wouldn't touch their own penis to clean it in the shower. It was "dirty" to do that!

If a man is taught to properly clean his penis, there is no reason that it needs to be dirtier uncircumcised. If he isn't, then it's probably better if he is circumcised - just letting the water hit it is more likely to keep it clean that way.

I believe everything should be circumcised. Even animals. Especially animals.

Beef tips.

I believe everything should be circumcised. Even animals. Especially animals.

You do realize that many animals actually have a bone from which we get the term "boner".

On the other hand:

http://www.rtoproducts.com/bull-canes.php

Beef tips.

dry it out and you'll get jerky:p

I'm circumcised and I'm just fine. I don't see what the big deal is about.

Edit: Just to make sure, I do know what the deal is about, but I don't think it's that big. I always forget this is NSG, and you can never be sure with posts like this...

I am a dude and i am cut and feel just fine. I also can last long enough to help the girl out.:fluffle:

I imagine you can help her out more with your tongue and fingers.

.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By talking and lifting heavy things. Keep your mind out of the gutter kids. :p

I am a dude and i am cut and feel just fine. I also can last long enough to help the girl out.:fluffle:

What are everyone's views on circumcision?

Personally I think its an abhorrent practice, and is one of those cases where it would be justified to step in despite religious beliefs. Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions), that doesn't mean it should be allowed without consent of the patient. While its not perfectly proved, several studies have shown that circumcision results in less feeling in the penis (and therefore less pleasure during sex), although some other studies have shown the opposite. However logically it makes sense that when a sensitive part of your body is exposed that it will become less sensitive (think calloused hands/feet). Add this to the fact that the procedure is extremely painful, provides no definite benefit to the individual, and in infants cannot be performed with general anesthesia, it is simply barbaric. Of course there is also the possibility of infection and that the doctor makes a mistake and removes the entire penis. However many people, without religious reasons, continue to have this procedure performed on their children.
I am circumcised, and not for religious reasons. Perhaps your argument would differ when I tell you that in my country, we do male circumcision for cultural reasons, and then would stop blaming religion for male circumcision (almost every male undergoes circumcision). Here, we have a derogatory term for uncircumcised males, and people won't stop from laughing at your face if ever they knew....

Also, there is this relation between male circumcision and penile cancer:
A striking correlation exists between the practice of circumcision and the occurrence of penile cancer. Circumcision confers protection; hence, this cancer is extremely rare among Jews and Moslems and is correspondingly more common in populations in which circumcision is not routinely practiced.
--Epstein J. The Lower Urinary Tract and Male Genital System. In: Kumar V, Abbas A, and Fausto N (eds.). Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th ed. 2005.

I am circumcised, and not for religious reasons. Perhaps your argument would differ when I tell you that in my country, we do male circumcision for cultural reasons, and then would stop blaming religion for male circumcision (almost every male undergoes circumcision). Here, we have a derogatory term for uncircumcised males, and people won't stop from laughing at your face if ever they knew....

Also, there is this relation between male circumcision and penile cancer:

Actually, it wouldn't change my argument at all, the only country I know of that has circumcisions for purely cultural reasons nowadays is the good old USA. If you would revisit my argument you'll see that I am against circumcision despite it being a religious practice, not at all because of it. However, circumcision is required in a couple religions so I figured it was necessary I address that. So if you would, what country are you from, just curious?

The men in my bloodline are all born with phimosis, so we have to have a circumcision at birth to treat it.

So we circumcise from cultural reasons. :rolleyes:
I've known college boys embarrased over their lack of circumcision.

We talk of the infant having no choice in the matter, but the same man who's pissed over his parents circumcising him could also be pissed that his parents didn't circumcise him. It's a lot more painful and frightening procedure the older you get-- and the recovery time is greater too.

Actually, it wouldn't change my argument at all, the only country I know of that has circumcisions for purely cultural reasons nowadays is the good old USA. If you would revisit my argument you'll see that I am against circumcision despite it being a religious practice, not at all because of it. However, circumcision is required in a couple religions so I figured it was necessary I address that. So if you would, what country are you from, just curious?

You cited Wiki and it says "In 2007, the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention"

Your reply to this is that everyone should use condoms? That may be true but it doesn't always happen that way. Condoms also do not provide a guarantee against disease transmission. Every little bit helps. The WHO agrees. They happen to be an international...even a world health organization (which actually contradicts the other website you cited.)

You have stated that although studies have gone both ways regarding the sensation issue, you believe it to be 'logical' that sensation decreases. That actually makes it, 'anecdotal.' The jury is still out.

The next is the pain, which is generally solved through anesthesia. Take a poll of how many people who were circumcised as infants remember the pain. It's not really an issue.

The last is consent. I don't think you or I should have the right to decide for someone else how their children are raised. Especially if they are doing something that -has- potential benefits to society as a whole.

Nay... The pointless mutilation of anyone's genitals, male or female, for non-medical reasons, without their consent, is absolutely barbaric and unethical to say the very, very least! The only reason it could even be done in the way we do it now, is that the person can not actually say no... or anything else!

No wait, let's not try and fool anyone. It's because of the fact that they can't say no and thus choose, that the people who really want it done, pick then to do it.

No wait, let's not try and fool anyone. It's because of the fact that they can't say no and thus choose, that the people who really want it done, pick then to do it.

Isn't it a bit strange that these infants who were circumcised without consent grow up and have babies who they then circumcise?

I mean, these people obviously don't feel gypped out of anything, they don't have horrible painful memories, and they generally don't perceive themselves as being mutilated. In fact, they make the decision to circumcise their own infants.

In so choosing they are in fact nodding their heads to the choice made for them. They thus have a choice: either pass on the custom to the next generation or not.

Isn't it a bit strange that these infants who were circumcised without consent grow up and have babies who they then circumcise?

I mean, these people obviously don't feel gypped out of anything, they don't have horrible painful memories, and they generally don't perceive themselves as being mutilated. In fact, they make the decision to circumcise their own infants.

In so choosing they are in fact nodding their heads to the choice made for them. They thus have a choice: either pass on the custom to the next generation or not.

A very valid point. Still, the question remains if they (should) have the right to make this decision for their children.

Isn't it a bit strange that these infants who were circumcised without consent grow up and have babies who they then circumcise?

I mean, these people obviously don't feel gypped out of anything, they don't have horrible painful memories, and they generally don't perceive themselves as being mutilated. In fact, they make the decision to circumcise their own infants.

In so choosing they are in fact nodding their heads to the choice made for them. They thus have a choice: either pass on the custom to the next generation or not.

Irrelevant. Most minors girls who have female circumcision, ie cutting away their clitoris, performed on them have mothers who were circumcised as minors. Do you think that cutting away the clitoris on a child is ok if the mother had it done to her as a child?

You cited Wiki and it says "In 2007, the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention"

Your reply to this is that everyone should use condoms? That may be true but it doesn't always happen that way. Condoms also do not provide a guarantee against disease transmission. Every little bit helps. The WHO agrees. They happen to be an international...even a world health organization (which actually contradicts the other website you cited.)

You have stated that although studies have gone both ways regarding the sensation issue, you believe it to be 'logical' that sensation decreases. That actually makes it, 'anecdotal.' The jury is still out.

The next is the pain, which is generally solved through anesthesia. Take a poll of how many people who were circumcised as infants remember the pain. It's not really an issue.

The last is consent. I don't think you or I should have the right to decide for someone else how their children are raised. Especially if they are doing something that -has- potential benefits to society as a whole.

Whether or not someone remembers the pain doesn't mean it did or didn't happen. I could have probably cut your arms off when you were first born and you wouldn't remember the pain, doesn't mean its insubstantial.

What does circumcision have to do with raising children? Nothing. I don't really think there would be a difference.

Also, I never said it wasn't somewhat effective at reducing transmission of aids, I just don't know of many 2 year olds who are sexually active.

Isn't it a bit strange that these infants who were circumcised without consent grow up and have babies who they then circumcise?

I mean, these people obviously don't feel gypped out of anything, they don't have horrible painful memories, and they generally don't perceive themselves as being mutilated. In fact, they make the decision to circumcise their own infants.

In so choosing they are in fact nodding their heads to the choice made for them. They thus have a choice: either pass on the custom to the next generation or not.

Well, personally I felt violated when I learned what my parents had chosen for me. And it shouldn't be the choice for the parents to pass down a custom or not- the child should be the one to choose if he wants to be part of that culture. I don't doubt that many people are happy with what their parents chose, or that they'd happily provide the same for their children, I just dont think it's ethical.

Meh, I was circumsized and it's never really bothered me one way or another. Granted, I don't know what it's like to not be circumcized but *shrug* I don't really ponder it much. Honestly, I've never sat there, looked down at my penis and been like, "OMG why did my parents chop off that little extra piece? God, life would have been so much better with it still there!"

In fact, the only detrimental thing I can think of from having been circumcized is that, for some reason, it's, like, not odd in any way to talk about a bris in a Jewish household. Seriously, you get comments like, "Yea, I went to your bris...it was a nice event, we had french fries and you were very quiet." These people are talking about my penis, and this usually leads to discussion of other peoples' penises. Doesn't this strike anyone as a strange topic for conversation? o.O

Chopping off part of a kid for ANY reason other than GENUINE medical reason (rather than "he MIGHT get [insert supposed disease here] if we don't do it despite this not having happened to millions of uncircumcised people") is child abuse.

Child abuse is sick, regardless of religion or of the gender of the child being abused. Period.

If an ADULT wants to be circumcised, that's up to them.

Irrelevant. Most minors girls who have female circumcision, ie cutting away their clitoris, performed on them have mothers who were circumcised as minors. Do you think that cutting away the clitoris on a child is ok if the mother had it done to her as a child?

There's a wee bit of difference between FGM (which does not qualify as circumcision, what with it being and amputation and not a cutting around) and male circumcision.

The only difference is different genitals. Again, the ONLY difference.

Let's see. One is the removal of an organ. One is not the removal of an organ. To compare FGM to male circumcision, is, quite frankly, sick.

There's a wee bit of difference between FGM (which does not qualify as circumcision, what with it being and amputation and not a cutting around) and male circumcision.

The only difference is different genitals. Again, the ONLY difference.

Anyone notice that the people who really have a right to complain about this, the circumsized, are generally meh on this subject?

There's a reason for that.

The only difference is different genitals. Again, the ONLY difference.

Ridiculous and insulting to any victims of FGM. Fuck, I'm a circumcised male with a dandy sex life, when I can get any that is, and you're trying to compare me with women who are physically incapable of getting any pleasure from sex and who are probably too brutalized to enjoy it psychologically either. Why? Why? You don't see reality? Or you just prefer not to so you can have a basis for your ridiculous penis fascination?

Meh, I was circumsized and it's never really bothered me one way or another. Granted, I don't know what it's like to not be circumcized but *shrug* I don't really ponder it much. Honestly, I've never sat there, looked down at my penis and been like, "OMG why did my parents chop off that little extra piece? God, life would have been so much better with it still there!"

In fact, the only detrimental thing I can think of from having been circumcized is that, for some reason, it's, like, not odd in any way to talk about a bris in a Jewish household. Seriously, you get comments like, "Yea, I went to your bris...it was a nice event, we had french fries and you were very quiet." These people are talking about my penis, and this usually leads to discussion of other peoples' penises. Doesn't this strike anyone as a strange topic for conversation? o.O

yes, yes it does...

Ridiculous and insulting to any victims of FGM. Fuck, I'm a circumcised male with a dandy sex life, when I can get any that is, and you're trying to compare me with women who are physically incapable of getting any pleasure from sex and who are probably too brutalized to enjoy it psychologically either. Why? Why? You don't see reality? Or you just prefer not to so you can have a basis for your ridiculous penis fascination?

No, what is ridiculous and fucking insulting is saying it's wrong to genitally mutilate a girl but fine to do the same thing to a boy. Yeh there are many males who don't give a toss about having been mutilated, but there are just as many, if not more, who are sickened that their parents abused them in such a way. Just like there are people who had sex with adults as kids who are very happy, but plenty who are sickened by what happened.

Suggesting I have some kind of penis fascination or other fucked up comments from your warped mind will not stop me being against the abuse of ANY child you fucking prick.

Anyone notice that the people who really have a right to complain about this, the circumsized, are generally meh on this subject?

There's a reason for that.

Look on the internet and speak to people - there are plenty of genitally mutilated (I'm not going to dress up the abuse any more) who have a lot to say AGAINST mutilating (abusing) kids.

Let's see. One is the removal of an organ. One is not the removal of an organ. To compare FGM to male circumcision, is, quite frankly, sick.

No, its quite comparable- both are ridiculous practices based on culture or religion that provide little or no benefit. Furthermore, an organ is removed its called the foreskin, also FGM doesn't have to involve complete removal- some instances only the clitoral hood (or portions thereof) is removed. One woman actually claimed that this made her sex life better since her clitoris was more stimulated during intercourse. Read it in a book that I don't have at hand so feel free to ignore that last bit if so inclined.

No, its quite comparable- both are ridiculous practices based on culture or religion that provide little or no benefit. Furthermore, an organ is removed its called the foreskin, also FGM doesn't have to involve complete removal- some instances only the clitoral hood (or portions thereof) is removed. One woman actually claimed that this made her sex life better since her clitoris was more stimulated during intercourse. Read it in a book that I don't have at hand so feel free to ignore that last bit if so inclined.

ROFLMAO!

Let's see. One is the removal of an organ. One is not the removal of an organ. To compare FGM to male circumcision, is, quite frankly, sick.

Both painful, both against child's will, both removing part of a child for no good reason, both have long-term consequences. To say it's O.K. to abuse boys but not girls, as you are saying, is what's bloody sick.

Both painful, both against child's will, both removing part of a child for no good reason, both have long-term consequences. To say it's O.K. to abuse boys but not girls, as you are saying, is what's bloody sick.

Oh, please.... None is saying that and using childish semantic traps to imply otherwise is ridiculous. What those who are disagreeing with you are saying is that it is not, in fact, abuse. Pain, in and of itself, does not denote an action as abusive; this shouldn't need explanation. There is also a huge difference in degree between FGM and circumsicion. The former is generally understood to be the removal of the female organ that is responsible for sexual pleasure while the latter has no such comparable effect. There are valid arguments for and against circumcision, but there is no valid argument for people to make complete asses of themselves. o.O

And what, pray tell, are the long term consequences of male circumcision?

You're taking away the rights of the poor babies to die of HIV. :p

And what, pray tell, are the long term consequences of male circumcision?

Read and find out, as I'm fed up to the bloody eyeballs of all these knobheads advocating abusing children just because they have no prob with it having happened to them.

Child abuse is child abuse, regardless of gender.

Look on the internet and speak to people - there are plenty of genitally mutilated (I'm not going to dress up the abuse any more) who have a lot to say AGAINST mutilating (abusing) kids.
Genitally mutilated is BS.

I am circumsised. To call it comparable to FGM is disgusting and ignorant. The removal of the foreskin is healthy. Parents frequently authorize the removal of the tonsils and other useless organs. Why shouldn't they be able to authorize a little snip off the male genitals?

NSG really thrives on outrage over silly things. :rolleyes:

No, its quite comparable- both are ridiculous practices based on culture or religion that provide little or no benefit.
Medical benefits to circumcision have been provided to you.

Furthermore, an organ is removed its called the foreskin,
The foreskin is not an organ.

Ridiculous and insulting to any victims of FGM. Fuck, I'm a circumcised male with a dandy sex life, when I can get any that is, and you're trying to compare me with women who are physically incapable of getting any pleasure from sex and who are probably too brutalized to enjoy it psychologically either. Why? Why? You don't see reality? Or you just prefer not to so you can have a basis for your ridiculous penis fascination?

Lets keep the debate civilized please, Multiland too. I agree that not calling circumcision what it is (genital mutilation) is a double standard. I'm not saying its exactly like alot of the cases of FGM as you put it, but it certainly isn't that much better. I think we could also all take a second to understand that whether we felt we were mutilated/violated etc. others may have felt that they were. I personally count myself among the violated so to claim that no1 who was circumcised considers it violation is simply being facetious (or is undereducated on the topic and should do some research into it before commenting).

Both painful, both against child's will, both removing part of a child for no good reason, both have long-term consequences. To say it's O.K. to abuse boys but not girls, as you are saying, is what's bloody sick.

And what, pray tell, are the long term consequences of male circumcision?

No, what is ridiculous and fucking insulting is saying it's wrong to genitally mutilate a girl but fine to do the same thing to a boy.

So, you deliberately ignore the fact that it ISNT the same thing. Well whatever, I guess you can always be "right" by ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Just like there are people who had sex with adults as kids who are very happy

http://mac.honan.net/uploaded_images/orly-750116.jpg


Suggesting I have some kind of penis fascination or other fucked up comments from your warped mind will not stop me being against the abuse of ANY child you fucking prick.

Oh, that's good to hear from you, but I already know that nothing I can say will "stop" you from having your own, completely wrong, opinion. I wasn't posting here to stop you from doing anything, in fact. Not only does this generally not happen in internet arguments, but it generally doesn't happen with people who have an unrealistic, but zealously-held belief. Like people who believe immigration is an invasion, Muslims are barbarians, fossils are planted by Satan, the WTC were brought down by controlled government demolition and the Pentagon attack was a missile or drone plane, etc etc. Arguing with them becomes an exercise in futility, or mental masturbation.

And I don't see anything wrong with masturbating my circumcised mental penis. It gives me pleasure, unlike someone who might have had their mental clitoris ripped out.

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

It is you.

Lets keep the debate civilized please, Multiland too. I agree that not calling circumcision what it is (genital mutilation) is a double standard. I'm not saying its exactly like alot of the cases of FGM as you put it, but it certainly isn't that much better. I think we could also all take a second to understand that whether we felt we were mutilated/violated etc. others may have felt that they were. I personally count myself among the violated so to claim that no1 who was circumcised considers it violation is simply being facetious (or is undereducated on the topic and should do some research into it before commenting).

Well I'm fed up to the eyeballs of all the idiots advocating male genital mutilation so I don't feel like being civilised any more - I feel like swearing, insulting people, and hitting things with my fist.

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?
My thoughts exactly. Seriously, we're fine, people. It's not "child abuse" any more than having a vacine administered.

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

It's you. Look here: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

Due to time warp:

It's you, look here: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html

Oh, please.... None is saying that and using childish semantic traps to imply otherwise is ridiculous. What those who are disagreeing with you are saying is that it is not, in fact, abuse. Pain, in and of itself, does not denote an action as abusive; this shouldn't need explanation. There is also a huge difference in degree between FGM and circumsicion. The former is generally understood to be the removal of the female organ that is responsible for sexual pleasure while the latter has no such comparable effect. There are valid arguments for and against circumcision, but there is no valid argument for people to make complete asses of themselves. o.O

So if I punch my kid in the head because I don't like something he did, it's not abuse? Don't be so fucking stupid. Harming a kid for no good reason (eg. other than slapping their hand to stop them sticking it in a fire) is abuse. Ask any child welfare organisation. And then there are the long-term probs, and then there is the fact the child never consented, the damage is irreversable, and there was no need for it. Just like FGM. MGM is just as sick and is abuse.

You're taking away the rights of the poor babies to die of HIV. :p

Prick.

Lets keep the debate civilized please, Multiland too. I agree that not calling circumcision what it is (genital mutilation) is a double standard. I'm not saying its exactly like alot of the cases of FGM as you put it, but it certainly isn't that much better.
Hey, let's play a game called "say what you think FGM comprises".

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

FFS when will the time warp crap be sorted??

Due to second time warp: It's you, look here: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

The easiest way is another poll. OP, would you mind adding a poll so we can see the amount of people who are circumcised who do or do not have problems with the practice?

So if I punch my kid in the head because I don't like something he did, it's not abuse? Don't be so fucking stupid. Harming a kid for no good reason (eg. other than slapping their hand to stop them sticking it in a fire) is abuse. Ask any child welfare organisation. And then there are the long-term probs, and then there is the fact the child never consented, the damage is irreversable, and there was no need for it. Just like FGM. MGM is just as sick and is abuse.

*sigh* Wow, ok, seriously, you completely ignored the two main points of the entire post...which really only consisted of, well, two points. o.O

I said that something being painful does not, in and of itself, denote that the action is abuse. Otherwise immunizations are child abuse, the post-birth spank is an act of child abuse, etc. etc. Do you see the point I'm making here? You implied in one of your previous posts that simply by the fact that a circumcision is painful, it is thus child abuse. I am explaining why that is an invalid argument.

And, again...why you continue to be rude and discourteous for no other reason than that it's the internet and you're able to do so without immediate physical consequences confuses and saddens me.

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

Yes. We appear to have a grand total of one who has.

So if I punch my kid in the head because I don't like something he did, it's not abuse?

That's not at all what he said. Read it again, it was pretty eloquent.


Ask any child welfare organisation. And then there are the long-term probs, and then there is the fact the child never consented, the damage is irreversable, and there was no need for it. Just like FGM. MGM is just as sick and is abuse.

Hey that's a good point, let's consult child welfare organizations and see if they think every male who had a circumcision as a child is a victim of abuse. Or for that matter any law-making agency or human rights organization.

What's the matter, the reptilian liberal media cabal got to them first or what?

Is it me, or are most of the people that are complaining about circumcision people that haven't had it done?

*tries again*:

It's you. Look here:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html

Also:


Lets keep the debate civilized please, Multiland too. I agree that not calling circumcision what it is (genital mutilation) is a double standard. I'm not saying its exactly like alot of the cases of FGM as you put it, but it certainly isn't that much better. I think we could also all take a second to understand that whether we felt we were mutilated/violated etc. others may have felt that they were. I personally count myself among the violated so to claim that no1 who was circumcised considers it violation is simply being facetious (or is undereducated on the topic and should do some research into it before commenting).

Well I'm fed up to the eyeballs of all the idiots advocating male genital mutilation so I don't feel like being civilised any more - I feel like swearing, insulting people, and hitting things with my fist.

Medical benefits to circumcision have been provided to you.

I know they have and I don't deny them but cases of penile cancer are extremely rare, I don't think cutting off women's breasts is a good idea just because they might not get cancer then. AIDs is an obvious one, but if a child is sexually active before he can decide for himself whether or not to be circumcised, well theres something wrong with the parents. Also, cases of UTI among infants are low enough along with the limitedness of the benefit of circumcision that 100-200 need to be performed to stop one infection that is easily fought with anitbiotics that require no harmful surgery.

The foreskin is not an organ.

An organ is an tissue that is differentiated to perform a specific task- I think that the foreskin performs a task- protecting the penis from outside harm as well as providing lubrication during sex and easing penetration.

*sigh* Wow, ok, seriously, you completely ignored the two main points of the entire post...which really only consisted of, well, two points. o.O

I said that something being painful does not, in and of itself, denote that the action is abuse. Otherwise immunizations are child abuse, the post-birth spank is an act of child abuse, etc. etc. Do you see the point I'm making here? You implied in one of your previous posts that simply by the fact that a circumcision is painful, it is thus child abuse. I am explaining why that is an invalid argument.

And, again...why you continue to be rude and discourteous for no other reason than that it's the internet and you're able to do so without immediate physical consequences confuses and saddens me.

1. Immunisations are a tiny amount of extremely tempory pain (less than a second) for genuine health reasons. Punching a kid in the head or chopping off part of their anatomy, a very male part of their anatomy too and therefore very important to them, without their consent, is blatant abuse.

2. If you were in person, advocating genital mutilation, judging from the mood I'm in now I'd suggest you ran. I would be just as "rude" and "discourteous" to any fucker who advocated mutilating a kid

1. Immunisations are a tiny amount of extremely tempory pain (less than a second) for genuine health reasons. Punching a kid in the head or chopping off part of their anatomy, a very male part of their anatomy too and therefore very important to them, without their consent, is blatant abuse.

2. If you were in person, advocating genital mutilation, judging from the mood I'm in now I'd suggest you ran. I would be just as "rude" and "discourteous" to any fucker who advocated mutilating a kid
1: Not true. I can remember an extremely painful immunisation which I could feel working in my arm for at least two hours afterwards.

2: :rolleyes:

1. Immunisations are a tiny amount of extremely tempory pain (less than a second) for genuine health reasons. Punching a kid in the head or chopping off part of their anatomy, a very male part of their anatomy too and therefore very important to them, without their consent, is blatant abuse.

2. If you were in person, advocating genital mutilation, judging from the mood I'm in now I'd suggest you ran. I would be just as "rude" and "discourteous" to any fucker who advocated mutilating a kid

1) So what you are saying is that the pain is actually irrelevant and that the consent, as well as the importance of the anatomy being removed, is the defining factor in whether or not such an act can be considered abuse?

2) I'd be terrified, I'm sure.:rolleyes: Especially because I'm obviously advocating child mutilation....:headbang:

The easiest way is another poll. OP, would you mind adding a poll so we can see the amount of people who are circumcised who do or do not have problems with the practice?

Done, however we must note that any results wouldn't necessarily be population representative. I am pretty sure most people would say its fine, I don't think thats really in contention.

1. Immunisations are a tiny amount of extremely tempory pain (less than a second) for genuine health reasons. Punching a kid in the head or chopping off part of their anatomy, a very male part of their anatomy too and therefore very important to them, without their consent, is blatant abuse.

2. If you were in person, advocating genital mutilation, judging from the mood I'm in now I'd suggest you ran. I would be just as "rude" and "discourteous" to any fucker who advocated mutilating a kid

You're just mad that you're parents didn't mutilate your genitals for you and that you don't have the balls to do it now!

*tries again*:

It's you. Look here:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html


Can I let you in on a little secret?

Many men at times feel insecure about their penises. Sometimes they blame this on being circumcised. Other times they blame it on not being circumcised. Other times it's just not big enough. Or long enough, or wide enough, or maybe it points to the left a little bit.

That page there is nothing but a bunch of guys whining about their cocks and blaming the evil Jewish tradition that they now identify as the source of all their misery. Or it's people who have their operation horror stories. Like those don't exist for any other type of operation that gets botched or is done by back-alley "doctors" in a third-world country or something? Of course they do.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Done, however we must note that any results wouldn't necessarily be population representative. I am pretty sure most people would say its fine, I don't think thats really in contention.

Cheers.

You're just mad that you're parents didn't mutilate your genitals for you and that you don't have the balls to do it now!

Hey if my parents had mutilated me, considering the anger problems I had when I was younger (now being brought back up by idiots on here), I'd have probably hospitalised em both.

Can I let you in on a little secret?

Many men at times feel insecure about their penises. Sometimes they blame this on being circumcised. Other times they blame it on not being circumcised. Other times it's just not big enough. Or long enough, or wide enough, or maybe it points to the left a little bit.

That page there is nothing but a bunch of guys whining about their cocks and blaming the evil Jewish tradition that they now identify as the source of all their misery. Or it's people who have their operation horror stories. Like those don't exist for any other type of operation that gets botched or is done by back-alley "doctors" in a third-world country or something? Of course they do.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

Oh of course, why the hell didn't I think of that - all those men who are complaining about having been circumcised, they're really only complaining because they don't like the look or size of their dicks - it couldn't possibly be any of the reasons they ACTUALLY give! Man you're stupid.

1: Not true. I can remember an extremely painful immunisation which I could feel working in my arm for at least two hours afterwards.

There's one, can't remember which one it was, I've pretty much repressed the memory, that more or less immobilizes your arm for an hour or so.

Plus, you know, the whole circumcision being done under anesthesia and thus not being painful at all thing.

If you're parents had mutilated you wouldn't have had anger problems, the foreskin was obviously the cause of your anger.

It's because the foreskin holds all the angry in and, when you remove it, all the angry flutters out like butterflies....except out of a penis.

If you're parents had mutilated you wouldn't have had anger problems, the foreskin was obviously the cause of your anger.

okaaay then

Hey if my parents had mutilated me, considering the anger problems I had when I was younger (now being brought back up by idiots on here), I'd have probably hospitalised em both.

If you're parents had mutilated you wouldn't have had anger problems, the foreskin was obviously the cause of your anger.

There's one, can't remember which one it was, I've pretty much repressed the memory, that more or less immobilizes your arm for an hour or so.

Plus, you know, the whole circumcision being done under anesthesia and thus not being painful at all thing.

Not all circumcisions are done under anesthesia.
Stang, 1998, found 45% of physicians used anaesthesia - most commonly a dorsal penile nerve block - for infant circumcisions. Obstetricians used anaesthesia significantly less often (25%) than family practitioners (56%) or pediatricians (71%).[61]

Only 45%.

If you're parents had mutilated you wouldn't have had anger problems, the foreskin was obviously the cause of your anger.

Well, according to the poll he has been mutilated despite what he's been saying to the contrary. :p

Well, according to the poll he has been mutilated despite what he's been saying to the contrary. :p

Woops clicked wrong one

Lying on the poll to skew the result is so nice.

Oh of course, why the hell didn't I think of that - all those men who are complaining about having been circumcised

Another thing is, most of those anonymous internet testamonials (very convincing source that. I mean it's like UNICEF and the WHO coming out and using your cutesy little term "MGM" for circumcision, innit? OH WAIT THEY HAVENT.

, they're really only complaining because they don't like the look or size of their dicks - it couldn't possibly be any of the reasons they ACTUALLY give!

Most of the reasons they give are they went to some shitty doctors and got botched operations. Oh, and these are mostly adults who are writing these things, about their circumcisions as adults. Doesn't even pertain to child abuse at all does it?

Again, botched operations stories. Not impressive. Common everywhere on the internet; not a good argument for using leeches and prayers in lieu of surgery.

Man you're stupid.

Oh, gee. Another ad hominem. How very convincing.

You don't even know if I voted on it

To the contrary-you can click on the numbers and see that you voted No and I am Circumsized.

I guess I have a question for those uncircumcised males out there. How would you feel if you woke up and found that someone had cut off your foreskin? To be honest I'm interested in what effect your foreskin has had on your life and how you feel about it. I guess it sounds really weird, but earlier people had commented on foreskins being very amusing ("like starcraft on your dick") and a woman complained that uncircumcised men pay too much attention to it.

To the contrary-you can click on the numbers and see that you voted No and I am Circumsized.

For all you know I could be

It's public, kid.

Clicked the wrong one

Not all circumcisions are done under anesthesia.


Only 45%.

That's from '98.

Another thing is, most of those anonymous internet testamonials (very convincing source that. I mean it's like UNICEF and the WHO coming out and using your cutesy little term "MGM" for circumcision, innit? OH WAIT THEY HAVENT.

Yeh cus real abused people NEVER want to remain anonymous. :rolleyes:
And unicef and WHO are concentrating on other things and WHO are made up of too many yanks anyway.

The following is just bollocks:

Most of the reasons they give are they went to some shitty doctors and got botched operations. Oh, and these are mostly adults who are writing these things, about their circumcisions as adults. Doesn't even pertain to child abuse at all does it?

Again, botched operations stories. Not impressive. Common everywhere on the internet; not a good argument for using leeches and prayers in lieu of surgery.



Oh, gee. Another ad hominem. How very convincing.

That's from '98.

And I'm sure all the doctors have started doing it differently in the past 10 years- I know its not recent but I doubt that many doctors have changed their attitudes towards the procedure without any extremely compelling evidence. I'd assume once people start doing something one way they aren't very likely to change without a good reason and even then most people are hard to convince.

You don't even know if I voted on it

It's public, kid.

It's public, kid.

I couldn't decide if people would be apprehensive form it being public, but since its the internet and basically anonymous anyway I saw no point.

EDIT: nevermind

Clicked the wrong one

Which is why you denied voting.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5615/ltingkz6.png

Now you don't have to click the numbers!

I couldn't decide if people would be apprehensive form it ebing public, but since its the internet and basically anonymous anyway I saw no point. Anyway in my opinion its more telling that men who haven't had it done are against it unanimously so far.

Well it's not exactly a lot of votes in total is it? Find a faceparty group and get all them to vote and see what happens.

Which is why you denied voting.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5615/ltingkz6.png

Now you don't have to click the numbers!

No I didn't. I said you didn't even know if I'd voted.

Yeh cus real abused people NEVER want to remain anonymous.

Well you know, REAL wealthy Nigerian princes who want to transfer money to anonymous strangers contacted via the internet want to remain anonymous too. Who can blame them?


And unicef and WHO are concentrating on other things and WHO are made up of too many yanks anyway.

Yeah, I guess the entire world is just concentrating on other things, or part of the Yank Conspiracy to never acknowledge "male genital mutilation." Well the Yanks and the Reptilian transdimensional overlords. They harvest the pain, you see.


The following is just bollocks:

Good point. Look, why don't you go have some dip or something? Do something other than embarass yourself by getting angry cuz you lose online arguments.

Well you know, REAL wealthy Nigerian princes who want to transfer money to anonymous strangers contacted via the internet want to remain anonymous too. Who can blame them?



Yeah, I guess the entire world is just concentrating on other things, or part of the Yank Conspiracy to never acknowledge "male genital mutilation." Well the Yanks and the Reptilian transdimensional overlords. They harvest the pain, you see.



Good point. Look, why don't you go have some dip or something? Do something other than embarass yourself by getting angry cuz you lose online arguments.

I'm not embarassed and I've lost nothing. I've argued against child abuse many times with valid arguments, you're just an ignorant ****.

And the "whole world" has various opinions on MGM. The USA, where it is more accepted, is not the world.

I couldn't decide if people would be apprehensive form it ebing public, but since its the internet and basically anonymous anyway I saw no point. Anyway in my opinion its more telling that men who haven't had it done are against it unanimously so far.

Well they obviously don't know the awesomeness of being circumsized.

Yeh, cus I've always wanted someone to chop off a very male part of me without my consent and with no way of ever returning it back to it's ORIGINAL state (including nerve endings). :rolleyes:

Look, Gorilla Glue is the STRONGEST GLUE IN THE WORLD. That means it can even re-attach nerve endings. No need to fret, now!

Well they obviously don't know the awesomeness of being circumsized.

Yeh, cus I've always wanted someone to chop off a very male part of me without my consent and with no way of ever returning it back to it's ORIGINAL state (including nerve endings). :rolleyes:

I'm not embarassed and I've lost nothing. I've argued against child abuse many times with valid arguments, you're just an ignorant ****.

Valid arguments like "Prick," "ignorant ****," "just bollocks," "Man you're stupid," "the WHO is full of yanks," "idiots in this thread?"

Well, that's impressive. That you've managed to last this long on one forum, I mean.

Valid arguments like "Prick," "ignorant ****," "just bollocks," "Man you're stupid," "the WHO is full of yanks," "idiots in this thread?"

Well, that's impressive. That you've managed to last this long on one forum, I mean.

O.K., valid arguments interspersed with insults then. And what I said about the WHO is true.

There's a wee bit of difference between FGM (which does not qualify as circumcision, what with it being and amputation and not a cutting around) and male circumcision.
Different like the difference between amputating one person's left arm and another person's right arm, maybe. But still a wholly irrelevant difference to the matter at hand.

"cutting around" No.. cutting what is around and part of, off!


Let's see. One is the removal of an organ. One is not the removal of an organ. To compare FGM to male circumcision, is, quite frankly, sick.
ah.. You seem to be selectively blurring together forms of some practices, while ignoring and factually misrepresenting others.

Also, in case that you couldn't deduce what I meant from the above comment or just didn't know.. Your skin is an organ, the largest organ of your body!

Look, Gorilla Glue is the STRONGEST GLUE IN THE WORLD. That means it can even re-attach nerve endings. No need to fret, now!

That reminds me of "no more nails" ads where they stick a chair to a wall with a guy sitting in it. Apparently it's actually a load of crap.

Yeh, cus I've always wanted someone to chop off a very male part of me without my consent and with no way of ever returning it back to it's ORIGINAL state (including nerve endings). :rolleyes:

Well you haven't had a circumcision so how can you know which is better?

This question seems to come up sort of often, I'm beginning to notice. :p

Myself, I always assumed everyone was circumcized at birth or right after, so I never really thought about it. But I suppose it's not the norm everywhere, and that's fine. I don't think it makes much difference, from what I've read of adults being circumcized after religious conversion. I suppose it might be a bad thing being circumcized if I lived someplace where it wasn't the norm, but most women here in the U.S. prefer it, from what I remember of past discussions on this forum. So I'm fine with it. :p

Different like the difference between amputating one person's left arm and another person's right arm, maybe. But still a wholly irrelevant difference to the matter at hand.

"cutting around" No.. cutting what is around and part of, off!



ah.. You seem to be selectively blurring together forms of some practices, while ignoring and factually misrepresenting others.

Also, in case that you couldn't deduce what I meant from the above comment or just didn't know.. Your skin is an organ, the largest organ of your body!

Hrm....I think a more apt comparison, though one I would still disagree with, is cutting off an arm versus removing a fingernail. Both painful, yes. One, though, removes a useful and inarguably important part of the human body, the other removes, at most, a protective covering.

O.K., valid arguments interspersed with insults then.

Valid arguments would at the very least have addressed what they are supposed to be countering.

And what I said about the WHO is true.

It's full of Americans? Your reason for WHO and UNICEF not sharing your opinion is that there's Americans in them. It's like saying well, the media is wrong - because there are a lot of Jews in the media. It's an appeal to bigotry, and your entire argument "circumcision = child abuse" is little more than a propaganda slogan, just like "abortion = murder" or "immigration = genocidal invasion."

It's designed purely to get anger and wrath over something everyone despises, A. Maybe it's terrorists, communists, murder, child abuse. And then assign this anger and wrath to something else, B - maybe anti-war activists, college professors, abortion doctors or circumcision. Then people can just blindly hate without having to think.

Well I for one think a valid argument needs a bit more than some angry "NO! X is Y, because Y is bad, and if you disagree you're an idiot **** yank prick stupid!"

Well you haven't had a circumcision so how can you know which is better?

Well if I wanted to find out, I could do so as an adult, rather than it having been forced on me as a kid - in which case I would never have known what not being mutilated would feel like so wouldn't realise how good it feels.

This question seems to come up sort of often, I'm beginning to notice. :p

Myself, I always assumed everyone was circumcized at birth or right after, so I never really thought about it. But I suppose it's not the norm everywhere, and that's fine. I don't think it makes much difference, from what I've read of adults being circumcized after religious conversion. I suppose it might be a bad thing being circumcized if I lived someplace where it wasn't the norm, but most women here in the U.S. prefer it, from what I remember of past discussions on this forum. So I'm fine with it. :p

In the U.S. maybe most women prefer it but one, that's not a reason to do it to kids and two, in other countries people think it looks gross (no offence).

Well why don't you specify which countries people think it's gross in?

England, Russia, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Irish Republic, Antarctica, and others where porn does not usually have bits missing

ah.. You seem to be selectively blurring together forms of some practices, while ignoring and factually misrepresenting others.

Also, in case that you couldn't deduce what I meant from the above comment or just didn't know.. Your skin is an organ, the largest organ of your body!

Yes. Now, unless circumcision involves skinning infants alive, it does not involve the removal of an organ. By this logic, if one grazes their knee they have lost an organ.

Well if I wanted to find out, I could do so as an adult, rather than it having been forced on me as a kid - in which case I would never have known what not being mutilated would feel like so wouldn't realise how good it feels.



In the U.S. maybe most women prefer it but one, that's not a reason to do it to kids and two, in other countries people think it looks gross (no offence).

Well why don't you specify which countries people think it's gross in?

Yes. Now, unless circumcision involves skinning infants alive, it does not involve the removal of an organ. By this logic, if one grazes their knee they have lost an organ.

Well considering that bit never grows back, I'd say at the least losing part of an organ (the point at which your skinned knee analogy fails, since itd be a pretty big problem if that bit of skin never grew back)- to the same extent we could say the entire clitoris isn't removed in female circumcision, just the part that extrudes form the body. I would also contend that the foreskin does double duty and is not just any old skin but sexually sensitive as well as providing "glide" and lubrication during sex.

England, Russia, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Irish Republic, Antarctica, and others where porn does not usually have bits missing

And this somehow is the world?

England, Russia, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Irish Republic, Antarctica, and others where porn does not usually have bits missing

There is nothing I can say here that will not get me banned.

And this somehow is the world?

I think you'll find that circumcision in Europe is quite rare, excluding the Muslim and Jewish and American parts of the world I don't know of anywhere that circumcision is normal.

Valid arguments would at the very least have addressed what they are supposed to be countering.



It's full of Americans? Your reason for WHO and UNICEF not sharing your opinion is that there's Americans in them. It's like saying well, the media is wrong - because there are a lot of Jews in the media. It's an appeal to bigotry, and your entire argument "circumcision = child abuse" is little more than a propaganda slogan, just like "abortion = murder" or "immigration = genocidal invasion."

It's designed purely to get anger and wrath over something everyone despises, A. Maybe it's terrorists, communists, murder, child abuse. And then assign this anger and wrath to something else, B - maybe anti-war activists, college professors, abortion doctors or circumcision. Then people can just blindly hate without having to think.

Well I for one think a valid argument needs a bit more than some angry "NO! X is Y, because Y is bad, and if you disagree you're an idiot **** yank prick stupid!"

All I am trying to say, but was not so clear due to you pissing me off, is that I think we can both agree that abusing a child is wrong, whatever the reason. Now as for whether male genital mutilation amounts to abuse, well you have obviously said that it's O.K. to chop off a part of a child because of something that may or may not happen in the future or because God supposedly commanded it just as he supposedly commanded hanging dead people on trees (see Dt.) etc. Now in thinking about this, it has to be taken into consideration what the results of such a particular action would be were it ever presented as such that it could be of something entirely unrelated to the matter at hand. Therefore, after considering all relevant facts and suppositions including evidence and testimonies of those who have been subject to such things as are related to the case put forward in its specified terms, it becomes obvious that such a case is bad for those concerned in various ways, as this post obviously shows. However, this argument has dragged on for far too long and I have no choice but to ignore any future comments from you in relation to the previous or indeed any comments from those who are too uneducated to understand the above and realise it's worth. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contacted me privately expressing their support and I'm sorry but I can't respond to all the messages, but thank you - I know it can be difficult to talk about such things in public, especially if you have registered with your real name.

here is an article everyone should read. myths_about_circumcision (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231083/dispelling_myths_about_circumcision.html)

I think you'll find that circumcision in Europe is quite rare, excluding the Muslim and Jewish and American parts of the world I don't know of anywhere that circumcision is normal.

So you apparently have seen penis from all over the world?

So you apparently have seen penis from all over the world?

You're right we couldn't rely on reports from hospitals on the number of circumcisions they do.
Look into the wikipedia article I've posted like 10 times so far before making idiotic statements.

In the U.S. maybe most women prefer it but one, that's not a reason to do it to kids and two, in other countries people think it looks gross (no offence).

Eh. Even if that were true (I'm not exactly sure it is), it would at least serve to weed out the women who are interested only in looks, yeah? :p In any event, I do enjoy travel, but don't really plan to settle elsewhere, at least not until I retire to a nice island with low cost of living. :)

here is an article everyone should read. myths_about_circumcision (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231083/dispelling_myths_about_circumcision.html)

In that article they basically say that the medical community is misguided. So essentially they're saying that they know more about health than doctors, which indirectly tells you that the medical community holds different views than theirs. This of course tells you that the medical community believes circumcision is good, and I have more faith in the medical community than a random site.

You're right we couldn't rely on reports from hospitals on the number of circumcisions they do.
Look into the wikipedia article I've posted like 10 times so far before making idiotic statements.

And of course every person in the world that's had a circumcision had one at a hospital.

Well considering that bit never grows back, I'd say at the least losing part of an organ (the point at which your skinned knee analogy fails, since itd be a pretty big problem if that bit of skin never grew back)- to the same extent we could say the entire clitoris isn't removed in female circumcision, just the part that extrudes form the body. I would also contend that the foreskin does double duty and is not just any old skin but sexually sensitive as well as providing "glide" and lubrication during sex.

Certainly, but losing an organ? Nope.

All skin is rather important, but losing it is generally not a problem as it grows back. From what you yourself said about the skinned knee, foreskin is one of the parts of skin of lesser importance as its permanent loss doesn't leave wounds unlike on the rest of the body.

And of course every person in the world that's had a circumcision had one at a hospital.

I didn't claim that, but at the same time I doubt very many people thought it'd just be a great idea to perform surgery at home instead of at the hospital. Those who did, did so for religious reasons, or had no access to hospitals- I don't think its a good reason to base whether or not a procedure is a good idea on how many people are doing it anyway. The issue is much more about the rights of infants to bodily integrity.

Certainly, but losing an organ? Nope.

All skin is rather important, but losing it is generally not a problem as it grows back. From what you yourself said about the skinned knee, foreskin is one of the parts of skin of lesser importance as its permanent loss doesn't leave wounds unlike on the rest of the body.

Of course it leaves wounds, I've got scar tissue to prove it. You contradict yourself by saying all skin is important, but that this piece isn't- if it wasn't important I doubt we would have evolved to have it in the first place.

Of course it leaves wounds, I've got scar tissue to prove it. You contradict yourself by saying all skin is important, but that this piece isn't- if it wasn't important I doubt we would have evolved to have it in the first place.

Sorry, I worded it badly there, that was stupid. I was trying to say that compared to foreskin, all other skin is just as important, and arguably more important.

The appendix?

I didn't claim that, but at the same time I doubt very many people thought it'd just be a great idea to perform surgery at home instead of at the hospital. Those who did, did so for religious reasons, or had no access to hospitals- I don't think its a good reason to base whether or not a procedure is a good idea on how many people are doing it anyway. The issue is much more about the rights of infants to bodily integrity.

That was mainly what I was getting at, because the poor can't afford to have a circumcision in a hospital.

As for rights, you are claming that we shouldn't change any part of someone's body without their consent, correct?

Of course it leaves wounds, I've got scar tissue to prove it. You contradict yourself by saying all skin is important, but that this piece isn't- if it wasn't important I doubt we would have evolved to have it in the first place.

*cough*Appendix*cough*

Sorry, I worded it badly there, that was stupid. I was trying to say that compared to foreskin, all other skin is just as important, and arguably more important.

The appendix?

Someone recently posted a thread on the appendix and how they've found it is a warehouse of sorts for good bacteria.

Of course it leaves wounds, I've got scar tissue to prove it. You contradict yourself by saying all skin is important, but that this piece isn't- if it wasn't important I doubt we would have evolved to have it in the first place.

What is the purpose of the tailbone then?

Sorry, I worded it badly there, that was stupid. I was trying to say that compared to foreskin, all other skin is just as important, and arguably more important.

The appendix?

Arr. You beat me...

What is the purpose of the tailbone then?

from wiki:

"The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and as something of a shock absorber when the person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. The muscle that is necessary for defecation attaches to the coccyx. It has been suggested that the coccyx is a vestigial organ in humans, where in other species it supports a tail and accommodates its nerves."

Finding it harder to think of things people don't have a use for are we? Why would one assume the foreskin is the exception as opposed to part of the general rule??

Someone recently posted a thread on the appendix and how they've found it is a warehouse of sorts for good bacteria.

And yet, the removal of the appendix has neither positive or negative effects for the body.

There's a wee bit of difference between FGM (which does not qualify as circumcision, what with it being and amputation and not a cutting around) and male circumcision.

That's not the point. The guy I originally quoted said that many men who were circumcised as children circumcise their own children. The implication being that it can't be that bad if circumcised men circumsize their sons. I stated that many women who had their clitoris removed as children remove their own daughters' clitorises. Few would say this makes FGM ok.

Whether or not FGM can be called circumcision is irrelevant.

Someone recently posted a thread on the appendix and how they've found it is a warehouse of sorts for good bacteria.

One study doesn't prove it, although it is certainly possible that it does have a use.

However, what about the tailbone?

And yet, the removal of the appendix has neither positive or negative effects for the body.

I'm not sure that any research has gone into this, however on the thread that dealt with this subject they stated that underdeveloped nations had far fewer cases of appendicitis and perhaps this was linked to the fact that it is used more often. In countries where there are readily available antibiotics, no negative effects have been witnessed to date (that i know of).

Those who say no: is it also wrong not to inoculate infants?

from wiki:

"The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and as something of a shock absorber when the person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. The muscle that is necessary for defecation attaches to the coccyx. It has been suggested that the coccyx is a vestigial organ in humans, where in other species it supports a tail and accommodates its nerves."

Finding it harder to think of things people don't have a use for are we? Why would one assume the foreskin is the exception as opposed to part of the general rule??

Well does there is no common medical procedure in which it is removed, so how can we know whether it is needed or not?

Well does there is no common medical procedure in which it is removed, so how can we know whether it is needed or not?

well if you want to ignore facts because they don't fit what you thought go ahead, then I can stop debating now.

Well does there is no common medical procedure in which it is removed, so how can we know whether it is needed or not?

And, furthermore, how does the function of the coccyx and its muscles somehow make the idea that the foreskin of a man's penis is probably a useful piece of skin?

Those who say no: is it also wrong not to inoculate infants?

I would say it is probably wrong not to inoculate infants, yes. Unless you want your child to die from a virus. However I don't think death is a common consequence of not getting circumcised.

well if you want to ignore facts because they don't fit what you thought go ahead, then I can stop debating now.

Yes, you can... because there is no fucking way you are arguing that studies showing the usefulness of the coccyx and its muscles proves that there is a usefulness for the foreskin.

I, on the other hand, made the argument that there is another part of the body that is mostly (if not entirely) useless. Should I stop debating now as well?

I would say it is probably wrong not to inoculate infants, yes. Unless you want your child to die from a virus. However I don't think death is a common consequence of not getting circumcised.

If there was an innoculation that cut the risk of HIV by 50%, would you give it to your kids?

And, furthermore, how does the function of the coccyx and its muscles somehow make the idea that the foreskin of a man's penis is probably a useful piece of skin?

Only by association, that since all parts of the body have a purpose there is no obvious reason why one random one that happens to be attached to your dick shouldn't have a purpose, I was never saying this was proof, only part of an obvious trend. I didn't even bring it up but since you guys have I figured I'd address this.

Only by association, that since all parts of the body have a purpose there is no obvious reason why one random one that happens to be attached to your dick shouldn't have a purpose, I was never saying this was proof, only part of an obvious trend. I didn't even bring it up but since you guys have I figured I'd address this.

All parts of the intestine have an obvious function, and yet one has no apparent function and can be removed when it begins to cause serious or life threatening harm to a person with no apparent or proven positive or negative effects to the human body. By association, it should be a vital part of the digestive system; however, it is not.

well if you want to ignore facts because they don't fit what you thought go ahead, then I can stop debating now.

So you have proven that the tailbone has a purpose, sadly it's the only thing you've proven in this whole debate.

And I'm ignoring facts!? You link us to sites that say circumcision is bad, and these sites admit that they think the medical community is deluded. Then you agree with the medical community and say that the tailbone has a purpose. So to you, medicine is only right when it agrees with how you think the world is.

If there was an innoculation that cut the risk of HIV by 50%, would you give it to your kids?

Yes, I would. However there isn't and there are much easier ways to prevent transmission of AIDS. Such as not having sex with people who have AIDS, wearing a condom, abstinence- none of these involve removal of part of your penis. Also, if my son wanted to get his foreskin removed I'd let him- I still think it should be his choice- esp. since by the time he is sexually active (hopefully) he will be informed and able to make his own decisions regarding his body.

If there was an innoculation that cut the risk of HIV by 50%, would you give it to your kids?

If the only negative side effects was some temporary pain I'd do it. If it came with loss of sexual sensitivity ans such, no. By the time my kid is having sex he'd be able to consent to it or not.
'
Would you amputate your child's lips to negate any chances of him/her having lip cancer?

So you have proven that the tailbone has a purpose, sadly it's the only thing you've proven in this whole debate.

And I'm ignoring facts!? You link us to sites that say circumcision is bad, and these sites admit that they think the medical community is deluded. Then you agree with the medical community and say that the tailbone has a purpose. So to you, medicine is only right when it agrees with how you think the world is.

Well, only one site that I linked to so far- besides it isn't that rare for the medical community to be deluded, there are plenty of instances of medicine rethinking what it thought was the right or wrong way to do things. I will note that no major medical community recommends circumcision- I have already admitted that medicine has proved a possible small benefit or small detriment derived from circumcision. In this I am in agreement with the medical community I fail to see how my views differ.

I would say it is probably wrong not to inoculate infants, yes. Unless you want your child to die from a virus. However I don't think death is a common consequence of not getting circumcised.

Yeah, I'll admit that was a bit of a dodgy analogy, but I think the point stands that there are health benefits and from my POV, trying to look at it through the eyes of a parent, it seems like a no-brainer. But it is one of those things that comes down solely to personal preferences and beliefs.

Yes, I would.

Thank you, so you admit you would have a medical procedure performed on your son, without his consent, if it reduced the risk of HIV. That's all I needed to know.


However there isn't

Funny how male circumcision has been demonstrated to do just that, isn't it?


and there are much easier ways to prevent transmission of AIDS. Such as not having sex with people who have AIDS, wearing a condom, abstinence.

That's nice, but that's not what I asked you. What I asked you was, even with condoms, even with abstinence, even with carefully chosing ones partners, if you could give your son, as an infant, an innoculation against his will, would you do it?

And you already said you would. You would have a medical procedure performed on your child without his consent that would reduce the risk of HIV.

So is there any point in continuing this conversation, since you already pretty much admitted you'd do it?

Thank you, so you admit you would have a medical procedure performed on your son, without his consent, if it reduced the risk of HIV. That's all I needed to know.




Funny how male circumcision has been demonstrated to do just that, isn't it?




That's nice, but that's not what I asked you. What I asked you was, even with condoms, even with abstinence, even with carefully chosing ones partners, if you could give your son, as an infant, an innoculation against his will, would you do it?

And you already said you would. You would have a medical procedure performed on your child without his consent that would reduce the risk of HIV.

So is there any point in continuing this conversation, since you already pretty much admitted you'd do it?

well, if one only wants to look at part of the issue then sure you've definitely won :rolleyes:. Of course if one also considers the fact that you're mutilating someone then I would say no, given that there are many ways to avoid getting the disease. besides, circumcision is a far cry from an inoculation against AIDS- 50% isn't really a high factor of safety.

Yes, I would. However there isn't and there are much easier ways to prevent transmission of AIDS. Such as not having sex with people who have AIDS, wearing a condom, abstinence- none of these involve removal of part of your penis. Also, if my son wanted to get his foreskin removed I'd let him- I still think it should be his choice- esp. since by the time he is sexually active (hopefully) he will be informed and able to make his own decisions regarding his body.

Circumcision is also a very effective way to reduce the number of bacterial infections related to the penis and genital areas, since the foreskin is *ahem* akin to the bellybutton and must be periodically cleaned out. Especially when it involves a very sensitive organ.

Yes, I do agree with you... your list includes three ways a person could avoid HIV and not be circumcized and have better chances of success - what, with the chances being 100%, 90+%, and 100%, respectively. However, from a strictly medical perspective, circumcision is a relatively simple procedure that both reduces the risk of bacterial and HIV infection in a patient and has not been proven to have any negative effects to the human body. It's something that should be practiced just from that standpoint because it's another way to protect someone.

Well, only one site that I linked to so far- besides it isn't that rare for the medical community to be deluded, there are plenty of instances of medicine rethinking what it thought was the right or wrong way to do things. I will note that no major medical community recommends circumcision- I have already admitted that medicine has proved a possible small benefit or small detriment derived from circumcision. In this I am in agreement with the medical community I fail to see how my views differ.

It's not rare for the medical community to be deluded? So maybe the tailbone doesn't have a purpose after all.

Also, there's pretty much a consensus among doctors that circumcision is beneficial for a boy's health.

Finally, you also claim that it takes pleasure away from sex, but there really isn't anyway to prove that.

I will note that no major medical community recommends circumcision.

The World Health Organization is not a major medical community? New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is not a major medical community? UNAIDS is not a major medical community? The American Urological Association is not a major medical community?

well, if one only wants to look at part of the issue then sure you've definitely won :rolleyes:. Of course if one also considers the fact that you're mutilating someone then I would say no, given that there are many ways to avoid getting the disease. besides, circumcision is a far cry from an inoculation against AIDS- 50% isn't really a high factor of safety.

No, circumsion is not a safety blanket from HIV. We're not proposing that all males that have been circumcised will go and have as much unprotected sex as they want knowing fully that they have a 50% protection from HIV as it is.

However, circumcision is a measure of reducing the odds of contracting HIV, much like using a diaphragm and spermicides in a combination reduce the chance of a pregnancy. The same could be said for a condom and spermicide. So, although circumcision does not outright reduce the chances of contracting HIV, it does reduce the overall chance of contracting it and, therefore, is a medically sound procedure.

well, if one only wants to look at part of the issue then sure you've definitely won :rolleyes:. Of course if one also considers the fact that you're mutilating someone then I would say no, given that there are many ways to avoid getting the disease. besides, circumcision is a far cry from an inoculation against AIDS- 50% isn't really a high factor of safety.

Oh so surely then you can show us some demonstrable harm caused by circumcision that outweighs the health benefits.

Go on, I'll wait right here, show us those demonstratrable harms....and by the way, since mutiliation means to remove a limb or important body part, and you have yet to demonstrate why foreskin is, IN ANY WAY important, you really should stop using the term "mutilated", if you want to retain any trace of intellectual honesty.

The World Health Organization is not a major medical community? New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is not a major medical community? UNAIDS is not a major medical community? The American Urological Association is not a major medical community?

Evidently, because they don't agree with him/her...

The World Health Organization is not a major medical community? New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is not a major medical community? UNAIDS is not a major medical community? The American Urological Association is not a major medical community?

I stand corrected. However the AMA as well as the NHS not recommend it, and won't even cover it. However, they don't deal with the moral issue here, only from a medical standpoint.

Oh so surely then you can show us some demonstrable harm caused by circumcision that outweighs the health benefits.

Go on, I'll wait right here, show us those demonstratrable harms....

Well... it's mutilation! And cutting stuff off to help people is bad!

Oh so surely then you can show us some demonstrable harm caused by circumcision that outweighs the health benefits.

Go on, I'll wait right here, show us those demonstratrable harms....and by the way, since mutiliation means to remove a limb or important body part, and you have yet to demonstrate why foreskin is, IN ANY WAY important, you really should stop using the term "mutilated", if you want to retain any trace of intellectual honesty.

I hadn't started using it, but you'll also note that I already posted a complete definition of mutilation and it fits the ticket. Its just easier to write then "permanently removing a part of someone's body and causing bodily harm". probably the reason the word was invented.

Well... it's mutilation! And cutting stuff off to help people is bad!

hehe, quite. Of course as I just said, since mutilation is the removal of an important body part, without demonstrating that the foreskin is in any way important, it's really not proper to call it "mutilation" any more than an innoculation is mutilation, as it removes from me a small circle of skin.

I stand corrected. However the AMA as well as the NHS not recommend it, and won't even cover it. However, they don't deal with the moral issue here, only from a medical standpoint.

The AMA is a far cry from the WHO or UNAIDS. Saying so is laughable. Also, provide a source as to whether or not they approve of such a procedure.

By the by, there isn't and shouldn't be a moral issue concerning the circumcision of children. Individually, yes, there is a moral issue. However, since we are concerning ourselves with a broader spectrum, the only issue is whether or not circumcision provides a medical benefit or not and, seeing as there has been no evidence to support the case that circumcision has negative health effects for the body, there isn't much of a medical issue here, either.

hehe, quite. Of course as I just said, since mutilation is the removal of an important body part, without demonstrating that the foreskin is in any way important, it's really not proper to call it "mutilation" any more than an innoculation is mutilation, as it removes from me a small circle of skin.

I have repeatedly posted why the foreskin is important, if you want to ignore it, along with the moral reasoning of my argument, thats your business. Its obviously far more important to clog up the thread pointlessly patting each other on the back.

I have repeatedly posted why the foreskin is important, if you want to ignore it, along with the moral reasoning of my argument, thats your business. Its obviously far more important to clog up the thread pointlessly patting each other on the back.

I've just joined the debate; go back, find it, and post it again, rather than patting yourself on the back for saying that we are ignoring this "proof" why the foreskin is important. You've been content with calling this debate over and saying that we're just patting each other on the back, while I have been singlehandedly debating you with little input from anyone else on this forum. Post it again.

The AMA is a far cry from the WHO or UNAIDS. Saying so is laughable. Also, provide a source as to whether or not they approve of such a procedure.

By the by, there isn't and shouldn't be a moral issue concerning the circumcision of children. Individually, yes, there is a moral issue. However, since we are concerning ourselves with a broader spectrum, the only issue is whether or not circumcision provides a medical benefit or not and, seeing as there has been no evidence to support the case that circumcision has negative health effects for the body, there isn't much of a medical issue here, either.

You're right moral issues have no place when it comes to circumcision, care to back that up?

FROM WIKI AGAIN:

United States

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering circumcision for newborn boys.[103]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommended using analgesia as a safe and effective method for reducing pain associated with circumcision, and that circumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.[104]

The American Medical Association supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.[41]

The American Urological Association (2007) recommends "that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits."[105]

[edit] Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[60] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed," (a statement with which the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs,) and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[48]

[edit] United Kingdom

The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”[49]

[edit] Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision (emphasis as in the original). It states, "If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment"[50]

The problem is, this argument has been repeated ad nausium and it always goes the exact same way:

-male circumcision is wrong because it's performing a permanent medical procedure without consent!

- we perform medical procedures without consent all the time. Innoculations, dental work, tonsels removed, children's consent is not required.

- but those provide a benefit!

- to many people circumcision provides social and religious benefits!

- those aren't good enough reasons, i mean MEDICAL benefits

- OK, well it's been proven that circumcision lowers the risk of urinary tract infections and HIV

- well there are OTHER ways of preventing infection and HIV!

- true, but the fact that it does lower the risk of urinary tract infections and HIV is a demonstrable benefit.

- but it's not the same as just an innoculation, it's worse, and doesn't justify the benefit!

- why not?

- because it has drawbacks.

- what drawbacks? There has been no demonstrably proven harm to male circumcision, unlike, say, FGM which has serious health risks. Nobody has ever demonstrated that male circumcision has any real negative consequences in the vast majority of circumstances

- but it's still WRONG!

- says who?

- well...me.


And that's it at the end of the day. We perform medical procedures without consent on children all the time. There are health benefits. There are no real health drawbacks that have been demonstrated. And with a proven benefit, and no real demonstrated risks, the question in the end is nothing more than personal choice. And while people are free to make their personal choices in their families, to decry and attack someone because they dare to think differently than you is the height of arrogance.

We have shown demonstrable and conclusively proven health benefits. You have failed to show any demonstrable and conclusively proven health drawbacks. Until you do, from a medical standpoint, the question is clear. If you don't want to do it with your family, that's your business, but at the end of the day you have no actual facts to support you, and must rely on emotive nonsense to try and prove your point because "it's just wrong!" because...you say so, apparently.

The problem is, this argument has been repeated ad nausium and it always goes the exact same way:
<snip>

- what drawbacks? There has been no demonstrably proven harm to male circumcision, unlike, say, FGM which has serious health risks. Nobody has ever demonstrated that male circumcision has any real negative consequences in the vast majority of circumstances

- but it's still WRONG!

- says who?

- well...me.


And that's it at the end of the day. We perform medical procedures without consent on children all the time. There are health benefits. There are no real health drawbacks that have been demonstrated. And with a proven benefit, and no real demonstrated risks, the question in the end is nothing more than personal choice. And while people are free to make their personal choices in their families, to decry and attack someone because they dare to think differently than you is the height of arrogance.

We have shown demonstrable and conclusively proven health benefits. You have failed to show any demonstrable and conclusively proven health drawbacks. Until you do, from a medical standpoint, the question is clear. If you don't want to do it with your family, that's your business, but at the end of the day you have no actual facts to support you, and must rely on emotive nonsense to try and prove your point because "it's just wrong!" because...you say so, apparently.

You'll find that the benefits are in the range of very very very small if you'd look over my sources. It's not wrong because I say so I never claimed it was, its wrong because it deprives children of genital integrity for only slight benefits- I find this appalling. Nice synopsis of the thread until the end (honestly).

You know what's funny? Not a single one of those sources recommends not performing circumcision on males. AT BEST it merely states that a circumcision should not be performed as routine, and parents should make that choice.

Which is far different from saying that they recommend no circumcision.

Yup, thats right, because in some cases circumcision or partial circumcision is needed to treat various medical disorders of the penis.

Though in most cases stretching the foreskin can obtain the same results, other times its too severe to not necessitate surgery.

*snip*

You know what's funny? Not a single one of those sources recommends not performing circumcision on males. AT BEST it merely states that a circumcision should not be performed as routine, and parents should make that choice.

Which is far different from saying that they recommend no circumcision.

You're right moral issues have no place when it comes to circumcision, care to back that up?

FROM WIKI AGAIN:

United States

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering circumcision for newborn boys.[103]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommended using analgesia as a safe and effective method for reducing pain associated with circumcision, and that circumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.[104]

The American Medical Association supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.[41]

The American Urological Association (2007) recommends "that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits."

[edit] Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[60] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed," (a statement with which the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs,) and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[48]

[edit] United Kingdom

The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”[49]

[edit] Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision (emphasis as in the original). It states, "If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment"[50]

I've bolded the parts that you've apparently forgotten to read. You've made the point blank mistake of overlooking other evidence to your contrary. in the very same article that you propose to use as your own evidence to support your own cause. In fact, I'll include evidence in the VERY SAME Wikipedia article you've held so steadfastly to:

In 1989 the Cameron study [70] was published and reported an 8.2 times higher risk of HIV infection among uncircumcised men. Since then some 38 studies have covered the issue of the protective effect accruing through male circumcision against female-to-male HIV transmission through vaginal sex. A recent study in Rakai, Uganda also observed a 30% reduction in male-to-female HIV transmission[114], suggesting some protective effect for the female partner as well. There is no evidence yet, however, of a protective effect against transmission from the active partner to the passive partner in homosexual oral or anal intercourse.

I've preemptively bolded this portion to remind you that I am also taking a good look at my own evidence. The bolded statement says that there is no evidence of a protective effect of circumcision in HOMOSEXUAL men or women.

This from USAID:

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 published studies by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, published in the journal AIDS in 2000, found that circumcised men are less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men. A subanalysis of 10 African studies found a 71 percent reduction among higher-risk men. A September 2002 update considered the results of these 28 studies plus an additional 10 studies and, after controlling for various potentially confounding religious, cultural, behavioral, and other factors, had similarly robust findings. Recent laboratory studies in Chicago found HIV uptake in the inner foreskin tissue to be up to nine times more efficient than in a control sample of cervical tissue.

Contradictory evidence:

However, the Cochrane Library for Evidence-based Medicine's review of the data (2004) reported:

We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. The results from existing observational studies show a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, especially among high-risk groups. However, observational studies are inherently limited by confounding which is unlikely to be fully adjusted for. In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful. The results of these trials will need to be carefully considered before circumcision is implemented as a public health intervention for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV.

The article goes on, however, to say this:

Nevertheless, the positive results of observational studies suggested that circumcision was "worth evaluating in randomised controlled trials.”

You'll find that the benefits are in the range of very very very small if you'd look over my sources. It's not wrong because I say so I never claimed it was, its wrong because it deprives children of genital integrity for only slight benefits- I find this appalling. Nice synopsis of the thread until the end (honestly).

ahh, "genital integrity". What, pray tell, is "genital integrity" and why is more important than say...dental integrity?

In fact, and to save space for other posters, clips found on the other Wiki site specifically on circumcision suggest this:

Three randomised control trials published since 2005 confirm that adult male circumcision results in a 50-60% reduction in risk of HIV transmission from female to male.[81] In 2007, the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention,[14] but emphasised that it does not provide complete protection against HIV infection.[82]

McCoombe et al. stated that a layer of keratin could provide protection from viral entry, and found that the keratin is thinner on the foreskin than the glans penis, and thinnest on the inner surface of the foreskin.[83]

A meta-analysis found that circumcision is associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes. [84]

Yup, thats right, because in some cases circumcision or partial circumcision is needed to treat various medical disorders of the penis.

and yet, none of your sources recommend circumcision only in those events, either. Not one source says "we should not perform circumcisions unless to treat specific medical disorders". Not a single one of them.

All they say is "we shouldn't do it without consulting the parents first". That's it. Not a single source that you can point to has specifically stated that circumcision should not be performed except for those disorders. Not a single one.

I've bolded the parts that you've apparently forgotten to read. You've made the point blank mistake of overlooking other evidence to your contrary. in the very same article that you propose to use as your own evidence to support your own cause. In fact, I'll include evidence in the VERY SAME Wikipedia article you've held so steadfastly to:

No, I havnt ignored anything- you'll note that I didn't claim there were no benefits I even said that they were just one or two posts ago, I also never tried to imply not recommend is equal to recommends not doing. Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. Ok, maybe that last bit was unwarranted, just getting alittle cranky its past my bedtime. But you will note in my past posts that I have tried to read over my sources well, and have restated what they claim.

and yet, none of your sources recommend circumcision only in those events, either. Not one source says "we should not perform circumcisions unless to treat specific medical disorders". Not a single one of them.

All they say is "we shouldn't do it without consulting the parents first". That's it. Not a single source that you can point to has specifically stated that circumcision should not be performed except for those disorders. Not a single one.

It's not unlikely that they didn't want to piss off religious groups, but also possible as you have stated, and I have stated before that the medical benefits are there- just not substantial enough that it is recommended.

I also never tried to imply not recommend is equal to recommends not doing.

Now let me ask you this, have you found a single source that specifically recommends a circumcision not be performed except in cases of specific disorders? Not places that do not recommend it as standard, but rather organizations that specifically recommend not performing one, except for certain disorders

Here's Wiki's cost benefit analysis of circumcision

Costs and Benefits

Several researchers conducted cost-benefit analyses to see if infant circumcision justified the costs and the medical risks. Cadman et al. (1984) concluded that the expense of circumcision outweighed any money that might be saved by reducing the risk of penile cancer. Therefore, they argued, public funds should not pay for it [165]. Lawler et al. (1991) [166]reported a net cost of $25.00 and a benefit of ten days of life. They concluded that there was no medical indication for or against circumcision. Ganiats et al. (1991) [167] reported that a net cost of $102 and it also cost 14 hours of healthy life. They found no medical basis on which to recommend for or against circumcision.

Chessare (1992) compared circumcision preventing urinary tract infections against its risks [168]. He concluded that non-circumcision produced the “highest expected utility”, provided that the probability of developing a UTI was less than 0.29. Christakis et al. (2000) report that "Circumcision remains a relatively safe procedure. However, for some parents, the risks we report may outweigh the potential benefits." [169]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." Policy Statement, 1999

Clarifying their statement in 2000, the authors explained:

The Task Force found the evidence of low incidence, high-morbidity problems not sufficiently compelling to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for all newborn males. However, the Task Force did recommend making all parents aware of the potential benefits and risks of circumcision and leaving it to the family to decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their child. ... Circumcision falls into that group of procedures that have potential medical benefits and some risks and should be evaluated by each family in the context of their personal beliefs and values as well as their ethnic, cultural, and religious practices. The Task Force respects the role of parents as decision-makers for their newborns and recommends that physicians discuss with parents the potential benefits as well as risks of circumcision so that parents can decide whether circumcision is in the child's best interests.

In June 2004 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia said:

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."[170]

A 2004 cost-utility study reported that the overall effect on male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision on health is more likely to be negative rather than positive.[171] The author, Van Howe, is a fierce opponent of circumcision, and has presented at a Strategies for Intactivism conference in addition to NOCIRC symposia. He has also been criticised for bias, distortions and misrepresentation of the literature (The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal: Volume 17(8) August 1998 pp 762-763).

A 2006 cost analysis by Schoen et al. concluded that: "Multiple lifetime medical benefits of neonatal circumcision can be achieved at little or no cost. Because postneonatal circumcision is so expensive, its rate is the most important factor determining future cost savings from newborn circumcision."[172] Dr Schoen, the principal author, has been described as an 'outspoken proponent' of circumcision. [173]

No, I havnt ignored anything- you'll note that I didn't claim there were no benefits I even said that they were just one or two posts ago, I also never tried to imply not recommend is equal to recommends not doing. Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. Congrats on being able to read btw.

Yes, you have. Your argument is that circumcision is mutilation and does little, if any, service to the human body - and yet, listed in your pasted source is a couple of groups that say that there are potential benefits of circumcision. They would not imply that if the benefits of circumcision were slight, at best.

I then go on to post numerous articles, even one to my contrary, that assert that there are notable and statistically significant benefits of circumcision. I've not implied that not recommend is equal to not doing, either, and I haven't misinterpreted your arguments.

You've argued there are little to no benefits to circumcision, and that the physical mutilation, both in terms of moral and medical effects, outweighs those benefits. However, I've provided evidence found in your own site source that go on to say that there are definite benefits of circumcision, including two by globally recognized medical sources.

ahh, "genital integrity". What, pray tell, is "genital integrity" and why is more important than say...dental integrity?

The difference I see is that circumcision (for the purposes of this discussion) is preventative, rather than a cure for an existing medical issue. Using your analogy, circumcision would translate to removing all of a child's teeth and implanting dentures because at some point the child might develop dental problems.

Someone will, inevitably, bring up innoculations, which is fair. Innoculations are also preventative and performed on children without consent. I think this only highlights, however, the need to treat each case individually and assess the potential risks and benefits of every procedure.

I don't think circumcision should be outlawed, but I do not plan to circumcise my son, if I have one. Nor will I opt to imbed a computer chip under his skin, like so many parents are doing these days! Again, it's a decision of potential risk over potential benefit--and in both cases for /me/ the risk outweighs the benefit.

It's not unlikely that they didn't want to piss off religious groups, but also possible as you have stated, and I have stated before that the medical benefits are there- just not substantial enough that it is recommended.

so again, at best, at the VERY BEST, all you have been able to show is that some medical organizations decline to take a position one way or another.

Your whole post is that male circumcisions is just flat out wrong, but to support that all you can find is that some medical organizations say "we can not recommend one way or the other"? That's it?

Your position is that it's wrong, and the risks outweigh the benefits, but you can not find a single official medical organization that agrees with you. Some recommend it, others neither recommend it nor recommend against it. You can not find ONE SINGLE reputable medical organization that says "we recommend you not perform a circumcision absent specific disorders"

not...a....one. Your whole position is that not only is it wrong, but it's wrong, not just by your personal opinion but medical fact. But you can't find one single medical organization that agrees with you. The best you can find are organizations that are neutral on the subject.

So this really is just your amateur, unsubstantiated, untrained opinion. Which...is fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But why should I listen to it when every other reputable organization that has been cited either recommends it, or offers no particular recommendation one way or the other?

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. Ok, maybe that last bit was unwarranted, just getting alittle cranky its past my bedtime. But you will note in my past posts that I have tried to read over my sources well, and have restated what they claim.

At the very least, you took time to repost your sources, which is far better than I can say for some that flock to NSG. I'm not going to put you on some personal vendetta list for saying that I'm misrepresenting your arguments. You've had a civil debate with me, and it's refreshing, since it's getting a bit more... uncommon these days.

Again, it's a decision of potential risk over potential benefit--and in both cases for /me/ the risk outweighs the benefit.
and you know what? That's FINE. For ME, the benefits do outweigh the risk (that, and being jewish I'd likely do it as a matter of heritage). You are free to make that decision as you choose to. . It's clearly not a question which has an absolute and definitive answer. Every medical procedure has risks. I find those risks outweighed by benefit. You may not. That's fine.

But the OP hasn't phrased this as his personal choice. He's phrased it as that the risks outweigh the benefits. Period. No discussion. Except he's failed to find a single medical organization that agrees with him.

Yes, you have. Your argument is that circumcision is mutilation and does little, if any, service to the human body - and yet, listed in your pasted source is a couple of groups that say that there are potential benefits of circumcision. They would not imply that if the benefits of circumcision were slight, at best.

I then go on to post numerous articles, even one to my contrary, that assert that there are notable and statistically significant benefits of circumcision. I've not implied that not recommend is equal to not doing, either, and I haven't misinterpreted your arguments.

You've argued there are little to no benefits to circumcision, and that the physical mutilation, both in terms of moral and medical effects, outweighs those benefits. However, I've provided evidence found in your own site source that go on to say that there are definite benefits of circumcision, including two by globally recognized medical sources.

You say that I admit there are health benefits, then claim that I don't admit it. I never claimed that the benefits are not statistically relevant, only that the benefits are minor in nature- which I believe my sources agree on me with that, with the exception of AIDS prevention- which I believe could be easily tackled when the boy becomes an adult, at which point he is more thna welcome to decide for himself.

and you know what? That's FINE. For ME, the benefits do outweigh the risk (that, and being jewish I'd likely do it as a matter of heritage). You are free to make that decision as you choose to. . It's clearly not a question which has an absolute and definitive answer. Every medical procedure has risks. I find those risks outweighed by benefit. You may not. That's fine.

But the OP hasn't phrased this as his personal choice. He's phrased it as that the risks outweigh the benefits. Period. No discussion. Except he's failed to find a single medical organization that agrees with him.

I don't think the risks outweigh the benefits, they might if there are substantial sexual repercussions, however everything I've seen is either biased or inconclusive on that issue. Common sense to me would dictate that there are negative sexual effects. I think that the risks combined with the moral issue of irreparable change to the body that someone may not desire outweigh the proven medical benefits which are decidedly small.

I never claimed that the benefits are not statistically relevant, only that the benefits are minor in nature

Perhaps, but then again, so are the risks. If you think the risks outweigh the benefits, fine. But please, don't insult my intelligence and your own by trying to push it as some absolute, especially when you haven't found a medically accepted source that says so.

At the very least, you took time to repost your sources, which is far better than I can say for some that flock to NSG. I'm not going to put you on some personal vendetta list for saying that I'm misrepresenting your arguments. You've had a civil debate with me, and it's refreshing, since it's getting a bit more... uncommon these days.

Thanks, always good not to be on someone's list :). frankly I'm surprised this hasn't devolved into a flame fest, though it was heading that way for awhile, though not between the current posters. thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Perhaps, but then again, so are the risks. If you think the risks outweigh the benefits, fine. But please, don't insult my intelligence and your own by trying to push it as some absolute, especially when you haven't found a medically accepted source that says so.

Where have I pushed "some absolute" when dealing with the medical issue? Please post a quote of mine, I'm actually curious and like to know.

You say that I admit there are health benefits, then claim that I don't admit it. I never claimed that the benefits are not statistically relevant, only that the benefits are minor in nature- which I believe my sources agree on me with that, with the exception of AIDS prevention- which I believe could be easily tackled when the boy becomes an adult, at which point he is more thna welcome to decide for himself.

I said "little to no" twice. Not once. You and I are both in agreement that you believe that circumcision has little to no benefit on the health of a human being. You also feel that, although circumcision does indeed decrease the chances of HIV infection, so do safer sex practices.

However, clinical, independent and double blind trials by at the least two globally recognized organizations (if not more, less recognized, nationally-accepted groups) that primarily deal with disease on a large scale have shown that the chances of HIV infection decrease on an average of 50-60%. This benefit, if nothing more than an addition to safer sex practices, far outweighs the cost of removing what may or may not be a useful piece of the body.

Aside from that, studies show that circumcision at an older age represents much more of a risk than circumcision at a younger age.

You said it should not be allowed on infants, period. Not that it should be a choice, not that people might disagree, not that YOU would not do it. You stated, in your opening post, it should not be allowed.

Sorry to mount the fence, but no, that statement isn't an absolute statement of opinion. He specifically said, "doesn't mean". Not "shouldn't be allowed," period.

Your first post:



You said it should not be allowed on infants, period. Not that it should be a choice, not that people might disagree, not that YOU would not do it. You stated, in your opening post, it should not be allowed.

Yes, and I still stand by that- my assertion has little to do with me pushing some absolute when it comes to the medical aspects of circumcision

Where have I pushed "some absolute" when dealing with the medical issue? Please post a quote of mine, I'm actually curious and like to know.

Your first post:

Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions), that doesn't mean it should be allowed without consent of the patient.

You said it should not be allowed on infants, period. Not that it should be a choice, not that people might disagree, not that YOU would not do it. You stated, in your opening post, it should not be allowed.

I said "little to no" twice. Not once. You and I are both in agreement that you believe that circumcision has little to no benefit on the health of a human being. You also feel that, although circumcision does indeed decrease the chances of HIV infection, so do safer sex practices.

However, clinical, independent and double blind trials by at the least two globally recognized organizations (if not more, less recognized, nationally-accepted groups) that primarily deal with disease on a large scale have shown that the chances of HIV infection decrease on an average of 50-60%. This benefit, if nothing more than an addition to safer sex practices, far outweighs the cost of removing what may or may not be a useful piece of the body.

Aside from that, studies show that circumcision at an older age represents much more of a risk than circumcision at a younger age.

Could I get a source for higher risk among later circumcisions? As far as HIV vs. possibly useful part of flesh, I think it should be a personal choice, not one thrust upon an individual.

I think that the risks combined with the moral issue of irreparable change to the body that someone may not desire outweigh the proven medical benefits which are decidedly small.

You have not articulated any particular reason or demonstrable risk why it should be done. So you rest on morality. Which is exactly what I said before. You think it shouldn't be done because it's bad. Who says it's bad? Well...you do, apparently.

And if you want to raise your children with that in mind, fine. You have that right. But don't presume to push your particular moral code on me.

And may I remind you, in your opening post in this thread, you said it "should not be allowed". Not that YOU wouldn't do it, but that it shouldn't be allowed. Should not be allowed based on your unsubstantiated beliefs and personal morality. Again, don't presume that your unsubstantiated beliefs and personal morality have any baring on me.

Again thanks for the debate... I'm going to go chill... I've been debating this too long for today.

You have not articulated any particular reason or demonstrable risk why it should be done. So you rest on morality. Which is exactly what I said before. You think it shouldn't be done because it's bad. Who says it's bad? Well...you do, apparently.

And if you want to raise your children with that in mind, fine. You have that right. But don't presume to push your particular moral code on me.

And may I remind you, in your opening post in this thread, you said it "should not be allowed". Not that YOU wouldn't do it, but that it shouldn't be allowed. Should not be allowed based on your unsubstantiated beliefs and personal morality. Again, don't presume that your unsubstantiated beliefs and personal morality have any baring on me.

Admittedly it is pushing my moral code, thats not something I find objectionable. Considering moral codes a very important and are the basis for proscribing anything from murder to robbery etc.

Yes, and I still stand by that- my assertion has little to do with me pushing some absolute when it comes to the medical aspects of circumcision

so you agree that, medically, it's not a clear case. But you still think it should not be allowed.

So you think it should not be allowed, but can not articulate any firm medical reason for its ban. You can not demonstrate any medical organization that believes that the risks outweigh the benefits. none. you only show where they say it is not clear, and decline to recommend one way or the other.

So we're left with your personal moral code. Yet earlier you stated:

It's not wrong because I say so I never claimed it was

And yet, absent any clear demonstration of the medical risks outweighing the medical benefits, all we're left with is your own personal morality.

Care to retract your earlier statement?

Could I get a source for higher risk among later circumcisions?

Hmm... I thought Tech-gnosis' source said that postnatal circumcision was more risky. It is, alas, only a lot more expensive.

Which means you should probably move to Canada or some other nation with free or inexpensive health care before you have it done. If your route is postnatal.

Sorry to mount the fence, but no, that statement isn't an absolute statement of opinion. He specifically said, "doesn't mean". Not "shouldn't be allowed," period.

well true, fair enough. But then again, he did just admit he believes it simply should not be allowed except for medical disfigurement.

Admittedly it is pushing my moral code

OK, fine, at least we're honest with each other now. The problem is your PERSONAL moral code is based on your PERSONAL beliefs. So I go back to what I said earlier. You think it should not be allowed because it's wrong, and it's wrong because you say so. And the basis for moral values on things such as murder and robbery is that they do harm without consent.

And since we have yet to demonstrate any harm...we're at an impass. Now I admit, if I thought it caused harm, morally I would be against it too. But I don't. You do. From what I've seen, the evidence seems to more support me, but I'll admit the jury is still out.

But you think it causes harm. I don't. Neither one of us can conclusively prove the other wrong. So trying to pretend we can is silly. And personally I've never been fond of prohibiting action based on flimsy and insubstantial moral relativisms poised as absolutes.

All I am trying to say, but was not so clear due to you pissing me off, is that I think we can both agree that abusing a child is wrong, whatever the reason. Now as for whether male genital mutilation amounts to abuse, well you have obviously said that it's O.K. to chop off a part of a child because of something that may or may not happen in the future or because God supposedly commanded it just as he supposedly commanded hanging dead people on trees (see Dt.) etc.

No, that's not what I "obviously" said. I wouldn't agree that it's "because of something that may or may not happen... God... etc" at all. What I have said, however, is that the comparison of circumcision with female genital mutilation is insulting, because it is.

FGM is a serious, debilitating, crippling, bloody, brutal, oppressive, insanitary and even fatal practice. Now what you are saying is that I, as a circumcised male, have been through this, and that the fact that I personally don't agree is just a result of my being ignorant or otherwise psychologically in denial (as a result of my supposedly being traumatized). Kind of a circular argument there, but what's more insulting is that by comparing FGM with my circumcision, you are in a way saying that the 140 million or so women and girls who are estimated to have gone through FGM, are actually not much worse off than I am.

Do you understand? I am guessing not. For some reason this is your crusade, just like the "meat is murder" and "property is theft" crowds have their crusades.

Now in thinking about this, it has to be taken into consideration what the results of such a particular action would be were it ever presented as such that it could be of something entirely unrelated to the matter at hand. Therefore, after considering all relevant facts and suppositions including evidence and testimonies of those who have been subject to such things as are related to the case put forward in its specified terms, it becomes obvious that such a case is bad for those concerned in various ways, as this post obviously shows. However, this argument has dragged on for far too long and I have no choice but to ignore any future comments from you in relation to the previous or indeed any comments from those who are too uneducated to understand the above and realise it's worth.

What a convoluted way of saying you're taking your toys and going home, and that we're all big mean poopy heads.

Let's see. One is the removal of an organ. One is not the removal of an organ. To compare FGM to male circumcision, is, quite frankly, sick.


Genital cutting involves the removal or in some cases ritual scarring of genital tissue. There are four types of FGC classified by WHO:

* Type I is the removal of the prepuce and/or part or all of the clitoris. "Sunna circumcision" is a non-WHO classification that consists of the removal of the prepuce and/or the tip of the clitoris.
* Type II is the removal of prepuce and clitoris together with the partial or complete excision of the labia minora. Clitoridectomy consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (both prepuce and the glans) and the removal of the adjacent labia.
* Type III (or infibulation) is the most extreme form of FGC and consists of the removal of the clitoris, the adjacent labia (majora and minora), followed by the pulling of the scraped sides of the vulva across the vagina. The sides are then secured with thorns or sewn with catgut or thread. A small opening to allow passage of urine and menstrual fluid is left. An infibulated woman must be cut open to allow for intercourse on her wedding night, and the opening may then be closed again afterwards to secure fidelity to her husband.


The bolded is the equivalent of female circ to male circ. The removal of the 'hood' .. the foreskin. Male or female.. that foreskin is covering glans.

and to folk talking about smegma.. women can get it too. If anyone is going so long without washing or rinsing off their glans under the foreskin as to have it turn into rank smelling stuff.. you can't blame the foreskin for that.

... "smegma is a very real substance; to maintain good vaginal health, you need to keep it from accumulating. Glands on the inner surface of the clitoral hood secrete sebum, an oily substance that lubricates the clitoral glans. When this secretion builds up, it becomes smegma, a thick white discharge with a cottage-cheese appearance. If the smegma isn't washed away on a regular bases, it can accumulate and dry out, forming small hard kernels under the clitoral hood."


Just wanted to give some information on these two things.

Not joining in on the debate. I've been in one on here and on another forum before. And it just raises my blood pressure.. not because I think it is a horrendous act.. but the reasons given for it. The reality (out here in the real world) that many do it without even thinking about it.. because they think it's just what you are suppose to do and don't even bother to ask why or what. That it's done in the hospital automatically a lot of the time without the parent knowingly having consented (I'm assuming that the doctors aren't just snipping without at least having some long medical form having been signed -- that the parent didn't bother to read -- yes that's the parents fault -in a way, but it still isn't right) and because of the lack of understanding that the male circumcision is the same thing as the least invasive female circumcision.. so they either aren't aware of the different forms of female circ (understandable).. or think it's worse simply because it's a female.

From my medical background far to many infants have gone through the pain of infection because of an intact foreskin that far outweighs the short term pain of circumcision. Later in life the circumcision is far less desirable. As for sex, if the procedure is done in a hospital(on a male) there aren't any complaints I've heard of from someone who is circumcised. Penises with foreskins require more maintenance to stay healthy, often causing problems even with careful and persistent cleaning. If I had to choose for my child, as long as my spouse was in accord I would most definitely opt for an infant circumcision. I feel it's my responsibility as a parent to make decisions for the welfare and safety of my child.

United States

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering circumcision for newborn boys.[103]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. (These from an "Academy of Pediatrics") The AAP also recommended using analgesia as a safe and effective method for reducing pain associated with circumcision, and that circumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.[104]

The American Medical Association supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.[41]

The American Urological Association (2007) recommends "that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits."[105]

[edit] Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[60] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed," (a statement with which the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs,) and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[48]

[edit] United Kingdom

The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”[49]

[edit] Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision (emphasis as in the original). It states, "If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment"[50]
I'm going to quote this again because it seems that some people here didn't read it the first time.

Suddenly circlisters.

I've had surgery performed on me while on local anesthesia, and surprisingly the anesthetic wore off before the wound had healed and even with pain killers it hurt quite bad for quite a while. And that wound wasn't even in my genitals. I can't even begin to comprehend how it would feel to have an open wound in one of the most pain sensitive parts of male anatomy, having no access to pain medicine, and not having the mental capacity to understand the pain's temporary nature.

I've found that circumcised men have a hard time understanding just how sensitive an organ an uncut penis is, so let me say just this; just feeling the fabric of my trousers sliding against the exposed glans of my penis has been on occasion so painful, that I could not ever, ever consider taking a knife to an infant's privates without an acute and dangerous medical condition requiring it.

And the preventive medical reasons for circumcision? Infant UTI is rare and easily treatable without surgery, which, by the way, is often a sort of a last resort for doctors, since even minor surgery always entails risks. Penile cancer falls in to the category of extremely rare, with botched circumcisions killing and maiming more people than it does. For HIV a more effective, less dangerous method is to discourage unsafe sex and intravenous drug use, but I suppose circumcision could be considered in areas where the Vatican has the power to torpedo any attempts at the aforementioned. And as for hygiene, well I don't know about you Americans, but we Europeans have this fantastic invention called 'bathing'.

In addition, a healthy foreskin is sexually active tissue and removing it diminishes sexual pleasure. It can make men last longer, on the other hand uncut men can be more gentle lovers. Which is better in the sack falls in to the category of personal taste and aesthetics, but it does seem unfair to take the choice away from the people most directly affected by it.

As for religion and culture, I would say that it's all fun and games until someone loses a body part. I wouldn't allow a Jew to have their child circumcised any more than I would allow a Christian to tattoo a cross on their child's forehead. Permanent decisions like those should be made by the children themselves when they're old enough to make them. Religion shouldn't get a free pass just because it's religion.

And finally, comparing male and female circumcision is definitely not silly. They're similar procedures often done for similar reasons, only difference being that in FGM they usually cut off a bit more. Is that really a good message to send? "It's not the unnecessary cutting of a healthy part of a child's sexual organs that's wrong, it's the degree of how much you take that matters."